Reply to @Gandalf: No, it's not, and I really think that a whole lot of the equity side gains have been due to the big boys playing their games. That in itself makes me leery, because for all I know their computers are issuing massive sell orders right at this very instant. Why might that happen, without any actual change in market conditions? Well, maybe because some quant's algorithm hits a trip wire, and all of the rest of the computers follow in a rush for the door. (Hold on for a minute- let me go check and see what's going on...)
The point is that so-called "fundamentals" (brings back FA memories of Fundmentals, one of my favorite guys) have very little to do with the market right now- most of the smoke and fire is due to big money games and Fed actions, either of which could change without much warning, and at any time.
One of our more verbose board members suggests that "a plethora of academic and industry generic studies" prove that it's best to just stay put, as extensive mathematical models of the past indicate that this is the best course. Personally, I doubt that any such model is capable of factoring in all of the various unique and potentially destabilizing forces swirling around right now:
• Mideast (pick your favorite disaster/war/potential war area)
• Europe (Euro, yes/no?), Britain (in/out?), "austerity" (yes/no/maybe/sort-of?), recession (again/still), EU banking issues (save the banks, yes/no/some/it depends/who, us ??)
;
• Fed (more QE?, yes/no/maybe?)
• automated rapid purchasing/selling
• lack of employment recovery.
That's just a few too many unpredictable variables for me. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as they like to say. The other fella may turn out to be right, but I think that the odds are a lot worse than apparently he does. Plethora or not- time to take some money off the table.
Cartoon Credit: GoComics

Thanks Scott.
Shares down more than 20% today...much more earlier, looks like.


Here's short MarketWatch article posted today...
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The over-the-counter common shares of federally controlled mortgage backers Fannie Mae FNMA and Freddie Mac FMCC fell Wednesday after seeing large gains over the past two weeks. In the early afternoon, Fannie and Freddie shares both saw a double-digit percentage drop. Both companies are under government conservatorship, and Treasury receives all of their dividends. While the firms' futures are unclear, investors hope that Fannie and Freddie will be able to shed government control after they've repaid all of the $187 billion received in government support. Both stocks have seen heavy trading volume since March. Despite Wednesday's decline, Fannie shares have jumped up more than 1,400% over the past 12 months, while Freddie's have increased almost 1,300%.

Hi, Max.
I saw your original post last night but, after the call and a meeting about the future of Will's Little League team (not good, not good at all), I was too tuckered to write.
My impression, in my sleep-depraved state (trust me on that one), was that I understood the trees but not the forest. Trees: inheritance issues managed, bond funds are a percent above or below zero YTD, TRAMX is rockin' and PREMX might become a funding source for a larger TRAMX position.
The Forest Question: what are you trying to achieve that your current portfolio isn't allowing? Given the goal of living on your portfolio's income distributions, a shift toward equities will weaken the income stream. It's also likely to raise your volatility. So are you thinking that you need more capital growth or a better inflation hedge?
Curious, as ever,
David (who's spending his birthday writing about income-oriented investments and fretting about Little League)

Too long, too wordy. For many of the rest of you, most of the info. is "old news." Couldn't figure out how to completely DELETE the posting. ... It boils down to THIS: shall I ride this out with my bonds? Bonds are facing big headwinds lately. Or---AFTER I get paid the next upcoming dividends--- should I use another portion of PREMX, which is sinking, even if not unexpectedly, in order to buy more shares in TRAMX? ...TRAMX is at a high-point, since I bought-in, 9 months ago. Both are TRP. Both are in rollover IRAs. And I am reinvesting all gains. And if I don't have to do it, I don't want to even touch my portfolio for regular income. Wanna leave it to wifey, who's much younger. We have a will... THANK YOU, TSP_Transfer.

Wish I were 40 again, knowing what I know now.
Investors in their forties should worry about fees; those in their sixties (probably, seventies for sure), about fund managers.
Oracle recommends good funds, but I'm not sure you need to be defensive at 40. If you think you would capitulate and sell out at a bottom, then defensive funds might be best for now, but you will have to become more aggressive in corrections, when index funds become an efficient purchase. This will happen several times before you are sixty. If you doubt your courage, buying after a 5% gain in the index will probably yield a profit.
Cash probably beats bonds for now, although River Park High Yield might be worthwhile.
Look at managers' ages, if you buy funds for the long term. That might make Seafarer appealing. More than half the gains will be overseas in the 20 years.
Currently, read GMO letters. If you can find an ETF in one of their recommended sectors, buy it and sell it when they change their opinion. (WOOD worked for me, but that was 2 years ago). I can't afford their minimums for their funds. While PIMCO may have interesting insights, I gave up and bought a couple of their funds.
If you really don't want to manage the money, pick a good fund family (TR Price, for example, for more "aggressive" investors; Vanguard for the conservative) with target date funds that weight equities at least 60% at retirement (or "cheat" upward on the retirement age if the equity allotment is lower) with low fees, and put the money there.
You may notice that I'm not paying much attention to fees, but I'm not 40. While it may be difficult for you to do, you may be better served by holding cash or River Park High Yield and waiting for a correction. This may be a fairly or overvalued market. Many people expect stocks to decline when the Fed reduces its bond purchases, which should occur in the next 2 years. I assume stocks will decline and that my fund managers will have anticipated this. You don't have to rely on their intelligence. Keep a lot of "powder" dry and pile in at that time.
If you want a presumably good fund manager to guide you, look at ARIVX. He's into cash now. When you see he has bought in, you will be somewhat late, but you're only 40, and he's into capital preservation, so you should be able to ride his coattails. He's fairly young also.

Agree with the others. I'll add that the Dow's a little deceptive today - off only .5%. The S&P lost over .8% and the NASDAQ over 1%. Looks like the Dollar strengthened - maybe mitigating any gains from international stocks. NBR reports that rate-sensitive stocks got hit hardest - supporting what bee said about REITS. Sad to see the devastation. The folk we've met in our travels from Oklahoma seem a fine lot. Can't help thinking of them. ... 6-foot snow drifts don't seem too bad now compared to that stuff.

Hello All,
I am new to this forum and looking for some advice on investing my 401k assets, I had it mostly in Apple and the lost all my gains plus some and am tired of playing with individual stocks and becoming too emotional with them. I just want to put my cash in 5 - 10 funds or ETF's and just leave it there. I am 40 years old and somewhat risk tolerant but don't want anything supper risky. Any suggestions are welcome as I have a difficult time making up my mind as I continue to look at more and more options.
Thanks
Justin

One of you (Investor?) a while ago half kiddingly alerted everyone to the fact that I have been the one to keep everyone alerted to what was happening with MSCFX Mairs & Power Sm. cap. It did take a brief nose-dive some weeks ago, but after 21st May, '13, the M* page shows it up for the past year exactly +35.38%. Throwing-in the end-of-year cap gains from 2012, my own stake is up exactly +35.91%.
I do not think such momentum can be sustained forever. But I'm enjoying the ride. It's still a very young fund.
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?region=USA&t=MSCFX

Reply to @msf: Although it is true that most mutual fund families (such as the Royce Fund) are Delaware trusts, the "portfolios" (or whatever the trust chooses to call them) are also regulated investment companies which must be corporations as defined by 26 USC § 851 which says,
"For purposes of this subtitle, the term “regulated investment company” means any domestic corporation— (1) which...". So IRS Rev Rul 2004-86 is not relevant to this particular issue even though it may be germane to other legal situations involving such mutual funds. Also, notably, there is another IRS ruling which clarifies that exchanges within mutual fund families (ie under the overarching umbrella of the trust "family", rather than the subumbrella of the incorporated "fund") are specifically taxable events.
But in any case, if you read section 1031 you'll see that it is mostly not about the kinds of exchanges found in section 1036 and does not specify any procedure or rules for an exchange to qualify under section 1036 but only how the basis is to be adjusted AFTER an exchange has taken place (and gains/losses have been recognized) per section 1036 (which gives no qualification except that "common stock in a corporation is exchanged solely for common stock in the same corporation").
Moreover, obviously any buys or sells that happen before, after, or concurrent to the exchange are not effected or relevant to the exchange itself and, therefore, so long as the shareholder holds both shares simultaneously (ie using margin or matching up the settlement times as can be done with certain brokers/funds so it's not over two days) and exchanges them there are no issues about cash redemption because the cash transaction is separate and independent from the exchange which only effects the cost basis of that cash transaction. Although you do raise a good point that the shares being held in street name might create an issue about the shareholder's right to exchange those shares without the involvement of the broker since the shareholder does not have legal title, it is hard to see how to shareholder could be liable if the conclusion is that he is not, in fact, the holder of the shares.
However even so, under the step transaction doctrine it is obvious that since the procedure I've advocated accomplishes exactly the same thing and yields exactly the same result as a "direct" conversion it is to be taxed in exactly the same way. Whatever magic incantation is or isn't spoken to a broker does not change the facts of the situation because, in the end, the only result is that shares are in fact exchanged in-kind and that's the bottom line. Period.
But if anyone is afraid to engage in perfectly legitimate and normal business transaction then seek legal counsel and be sure to also ask them if it's safe to ever crawl out from living under a rock without being spanked by the big bad government…if they know anything about the law then they will say "no, we are all criminals and there is nothing you can do for which you couldn't have your brains spanked out if the government chose to prosecute you". :) Law school:

I am not sure I fully buy into the idea of shareholder yield and whether it reflects sound capital allocation. Dividends and debt payoffs seem okay. My concern is with share buybacks -- there are so many cases of firms that have repurchased shares at the peak that I wonder if this is a good component of shareholder yield. In many ways, Buffett's use of buybacks at prices when the P/B is low makes a lot of sense -- sound allocation of capital and setting a price floor on the stock.
This may be a naive comment. I would be interested in any studies that have looked at the longer term performance (including dividends) of stocks that have favored dividends over buybacks and vice versa.
BWG

Reply to @Ralph: Hi, Ralph.
Old Joe's right: both chip and I have investments in the fund and have added to them regularly. They're part of my and her "cash management" portfolios.
As I've talked with David S. about managing the fund, it seems to me to be a high maintenance / high cost strategy. His estimate, if I recall correctly, is that he has to place $4 in purchases for every $1 in the portfolio because these positions are redeemed so quickly. He's investing in orphaned securities which don't have a lot of deal-makers for them, so there's a fair amount of legwork involved.
He seems comfortable that, after expenses, he can outperform a money market by 250 - 350 bps. And he seems adamant that he will not knowingly expose his investors to an appreciable risk of losing capital; he'd rather go to cash than participate in trades where he's reaching beyond the comfort zone. In the 32 months since launch, he's turned a $10k portfolio into an $11,000 portfolio with negligible volatility. Over that same period, Vanguard's Prime Money Market turned $10k into $10,010 and their short-term bond index fund turned $10k into $10,500.
For what interest it holds,
David

Reply to @BannedfromBogleheads:
Sigh. This is one of those issues that I haven't had enough interest in to research all the details (i.e. to connect all the dots), and this thread hasn't changed that. That said, here's what I can say confidently, and what I reasonably speculate. Note that reading statutes and other legal writings may often entail context (legal framework) that completely changes what you may consider "plain English". In my speculations, I'll take note of that.
1. Mutual funds are a type of investment company. (SEC: Mutual Funds). "Generally, an 'investment company' is a company (corporation, business trust, partnership, or LLC) ..." (SEC: Investment Companies)
2. In particular, the Royce Fund (of which all the Royce mutual funds are portfolios) is "a Delaware statutory trust, [] a diversified open-end registered management investment company". (Royce: SAI).
3. "Delaware law provides that a Delaware statutory trust is an unincorporated association recognized as an entity separate from its owners." (IRS Rev Rul 2004-86 [discussing 1031 exchange of real property within a Delaware statutory trust.)
So already we know that RSEMX is not a corporation (it is unincorporated). Remember too, that a corporation (except for an S-corp) is not a passthrough entity. It is taxed separately - that's the problem with SteelPath funds.
Now here's where I get somewhat speculative. We know that tax free exchanges of share classes of the same fund are possible.
4. IRC Section 1036 is the applicable section of the tax code, despite the fact that it applies specifically to corporations. (Fairmark: Capital Gains and Losses forum; Kay Thomas post.)
So we may reasonably infer that the IRS reads "corporation" loosely with respect to this section of the code. This section also references 1031 (for the purpose of computing basis, i.e. that the exchange was tax free), which is where I believe the detailed rules and procedures for executing the exchanges come from.
As I read about 1031 exchanges, I see various warnings about needing to do a direct exchange - property for property; no cash in the middle. There are "safe harbors", where an intermediary may be used. But these require precise steps and due care. Here's an ABA article talking about the rules, safe harbors, and danger zones:
https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_trends_news_practice_area_e_newsletter_home/savetaxdollars.html
Some observations, and then a little more wild speculation. When you own shares of a fund through a brokerage, the brokerage has legal title (shares held in "street name"). This may gum up the works, if you try your "self help" approach; I don't know.
Brokerages require two days to execute a sell/buy transaction across fund families. This is because they submit the buy order on day 1, and only after market close do they know the amount of cash available for the subsequent buy (on day 2). Sometimes, but not always, they can do an intra-family "swap" on one day - as if you owned the shares directly through the fund company, and the fund company provided that service for you. Sometimes brokerages can't do an intra-family swap in a single day.
My wild speculation is that the issue of a tax-free exchange of share classes is related. That this swap provides for a cashless exchange, via an intermediary, which may be what's needed.
I really haven't yet read enough on the rules to say how much of the speculation is correct. I am quite confident, however, that a note to oneself does not conform to any procedure or rule I have found to date.

FROM THE LINK BELOW
“ETF closures are a healthy part of the maturation of the industry, and enable providers to free up capital to develop new and innovative product offerings for investors,” William Belden, managing director for Guggenheim Investments, said in a press release.
Fund closures this year now total 32 funds—a healthy clip relative to most years in the industry’s 20-year history, but well off last year’s pace that led to more than 100 strategies shutting down. Industry sources generally echo Belden’s words about closures being a sign of a maturing industry, and many say also that fund sponsors are now less willing to try bringing to market any type of fund and are instead much more likely to carefully consider what the market will bear before investing resources in a rollout.
http://www.indexuniverse.com/sections/features/18727-guggenheim-to-shut-rmb-its-yuan-bond-etf.html?source=email_rt_mc_body

I've made modest gains despite the ER in the 2 plus years I've held the fund. It has delivered as I hoped it would. Despite being advised otherwise, I do consider it a money market substitute and will park cash there as long as it continues to avoid volatility and perform better than a money market or CD.

I sometimes like to screen my brokerage offerings. Today at (USAA Brokerage) I searched for some interesting funds with low expense ratios (less than 1.2%), relatively low minimums ($3k or less) along with some other filters. Here are my results and a short list of funds (36) that I would like readers to comment on if interested.
Of the nearly 9000 fund offered at USAA, only 998 are offered NFT (no transaction fee). Great funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, T Rowe Price and Dodge and Cox and probably others fall off early because they requie a TF (transaction fee...about $45 at USAA). Interestingly, I can get USAA funds at Vanguard brokerage NTF, but not the other way around. So I have a conversation (with myself) about ways to maximize my NTF choices especially with funds I particularly like…sometimes this means changing brokerage companies...a different topic.
Advisor shares show up as NTF choices and I noticed that T. Rowe Price and Fidelity offer Advisor share class funds that are NTF at USAA brokerage. These share classes have a higher ER (expense ratio) than their mother ship fund. For example, T. Rowe Price’s Capital Appreciation Fund (PRWCX which is TF at USAA) is offered NTF as PACLX with an ER .36% higher (roughly 1/3) than PRWCX. Just like TFs, higher ERs can significantly impact your profitability over longer time frames.
One thing I do like about USAA brokerage is they don't have 30, 60 ,or 90 day repurchase stops, or early redemption fees for trading. I have a habit of taking 10% profits from my funds regardless of the length of time I have own a fund. Early redemption fees can hurt profitability when you either want to sell to take profits (gain) or sell to stop losses (think PM funds). Basically, I don’t like early redemption fees. I probably am a good candidate for etfs that can be transacted for free at certain brokerages such as, Vanguard...again, another topic.
Anyway, to make a long story …longer, of the 998 NTF funds at USAA brokerage only 743 funds have an ER of less than 2% and a minimum of $3K. Only 410 funds screen out with a 1.2% max ER and a $3k minimum. Still a lot of choices but not nearly the 9000 fund choices I started with. Of these, only half (220 funds) have managers that have been around for 5 years or more. Only 102 funds have a medium to low standard deviation. Only 53 funds have a medium to high Alpha which means to me that the manager has made some bets and they have paid off. Of these 53 funds, 36 funds have a medium to low beta.
So I identified 36 funds from nearly 9000 funds I started looking at…that’s about 3 fo every 1000 choices. Not sure if they are the needles in the USAA brokerage fund haystack, but take a look and any comments on this list would be appreciated.

Sorry if i offended anyone. I was just a little surprised that 14 people viewed my post and not one made ANY comment whatsoever. I guess my expections were a little misguided!
I do appreciate the responses so far, thank you!!!
A little more info as requested. I hold this in a TAXABLE brakerage account at Fidelity. And I do make period additions, not monthly, maybe one or twice a year on average.
I did not know that FIDO can do the "exchange", I will have to look into that, thanks!! And yes, I would have LT cap gains if I have to sell than buy. BUT I do not think that is the case, I believe I can "exchange" w/o incurring the LtCG.
I do hold positions typically for much more than one year; I've had this postion for about 18 months.
Mark, I tried to research RMUIX on FIDO's website and it did not bring up a webpage. It could not find it. This has happend before with other Institutional funds and what I've been told it that this fund is "unavailable" to be purchased by a "retail" investor. I certainly can look into this again, though, thanks!!
To

Hi Guys,
My wife and I returned late yesterday from our combined Utah parks tour and attendance at the annual Las Vegas Money Show. Both were exceptional experiences. Zion, Bryce, and Arches parks remain surprising even after several visits.
At the Money Show we separately and together attended 25 presentations. A few disappointed, but overall, the material informed and the talks were superior. Away from the formal meetings, I managed to talk one-on-one with James Stack and Jack Ablin. Between sessions, I shared somewhat divergent opinions with three financial advisors from three separate parts of the US. Great fun.
This year, the Las Vegas edition of the Money Show attracted over 7,000 folks, mostly active traders. That’s down from a peak of over 10,000 attendees several years ago. The program organizers announced that individual stock ownership has dropped from about 65 % of the adult population to roughly 52 % currently. The memories of the 2008 meltdown have not yet been completely erased.
To observe that individual opinions are distinct and somewhat divergent is an understatement. The interpretations of identical data wildly diverged. There surely was not a universal consensus, and just as assuredly there were no Las Vegas eureka moments.
Since I believe in the inductive logic chain for decision making, I seek and evaluate diverse opinions. They contribute to my investment decisions. Majority perspectives should not automatically carry the day. To a scientist, a consensus is not necessarily a good thing. Challenging conventional wisdom can promote research and better understanding. In the investment world nothing is forever.
In the 1830s, after touring the US for several years, Frenchman Alex de Tocqueville wrote: “ The French, under the old regime, held at for a maxim that the King could do no wrong. The Americans entertain the same opinion with regard to the majority”. In his book, de Tocqueville purportedly formulated “The Tyranny of the Majority” rule. That is a very dodgy trait given the often demonstrated actions of crowd (mob) misbehavior.
Total consensus is also a hazardous thing. It is the stuff that directly leads to the tyranny of markets. If everyone simultaneously approaches a 100 % consensus that is the substance of panics and manias. Fortunately that happens infrequently in the pragmatic marketplace.
When everyone is on the same page, a dramatic change in direction is increasingly likely; essentially, it is an unstable equilibrium. If everyone is committed to equities, one minor event, rumor, or falsehood is likely to trigger a tipping point that cascades into an avalanche of either sells or buys. The direction doesn’t matter; the mob psychology carries the day.
Remember that’s what happened just before the Great 1929 stock market Crash when sophisticated market wizards like Irving Fisher and John Raskob made egregious misdirected predictions. Both these gentlemen had a lot of explaining to do to salvage their self-inflicted damaged reputations.
Forecasting is definitely a treacherous business. Nobody hits the mark consistently. On occasion, a random success leads to unwarranted adulation until the next forecast turns south.
As early as 1932, Alfred Crowles asked and answered the ubiquitous question within the investment community: “Can Stock Market Forecasters Forecast?”
Crowles performance data sets included individual market experts, media pundits, the Dow Theory itself, and insurance companies over an extended timeframe. His study findings were negative among all groups. He found little evidence of skill, and attributed its much fewer successes to luck. Financial forecasters in yesteryear share the same abysmal record as today’s experts.
I assembled this brief history as prologue to my informal survey conducted at the annual Las Vegas event.
My burning question when joining the conference was “what are the likely equity market rewards for the remainder of the year”?
Not unexpectedly a consensus was not reached. In a restricted sense, that’s goodness since it shows independent thinking and some distancing from any group-think mentality.
The overarching summary is that a much more numerous cohort, using economic, political, and financial convictions, anticipate a continuing bull market.
The optimistic side team members include Steve Forbes, James Stack, Ron Muhlencamp, Hillary Kramer, Louis Navellier, Jack Ablin, John Buckingham, and a host of others. The May 13 issue of Barron’s headlined “This Bull has Room to Run”. The Investor’s Business Daily also currently rates the equity markets as a “confirmed uptrend”. All these positive outlooks cautioned against sudden political and economic reversals so they seem timid when contrasted against the other side’s views.
The pessimistic group is vigorously represented by a numerically smaller, but more firmly committed, cohort that includes Alex Merk and Peter Schiff. Based on his assessment, Peter Schiff has replaced Nouriel Roubini as the new Doctor Doom.
Everyone sees a long-term financial crisis caused by excessive government printing money without commensurate productivity gains. This is not a Black Swan event; it is foreseeable. The pessimists predict a cliff. The optimists allow for a gradual descent, with demographics and productivity growth mitigating the downturn. Construct your own scenario.
A sector rotation strategy appears to be the composite wisdom of the professionals. Many money managers emphasize sector rotation to enhance returns during different segments of a maturing bull market. Most concurred that the present equity markets are getting late in the bull cycle.
Given its current age, James Stack recommends a rotation into the Healthcare, Consumer Staples, and Utilities sectors. Historically these play solid defense coupled into a safety-first strategy.
Still market positive, but also in a defensive framework, economist Mark Skousen endorsed the Baron Growth (BGRFX) and the Permanent Portfolio (PRPFX) mutual funds, and the Aberdeen Asia Global Partners Income Fund (FAX) and the Eaton Vance Floating Rate Income Trust (EFT) as part of an income protection portfolio. I have not researched these recommendations myself.
Louis Navellier is the single, most impressive stock-picker I currently follow. Mark Hulbert has evaluated Navellier’s newsletters and mutual fund performance for years. He has consistently scored Navellier highly both on an absolute returns basis and on a risk-adjusted scale. Let me report two takeaways from his Las Vegas talk.
First, Navellier recommends to stay completely away from International holdings. The risk-reward tradeoffs are far too asymmetrical. In a relative sense, the US equity marketplace is in a sweet-spot with an accommodative Fed and a strong US dollar.
Second, you can get free access to Navellier’s stock judgments. He assesses countless stocks and his website includes a comprehensive set of data and astute scoring. His web address is:
http://navelliergrowth.investorplace.com/
Enter the stock symbol (or symbols with a space between them) in the screen place indicated. That will get an overall score. For a more detailed profile, click on the symbol in the overall score box. The assessment as a function of time is particularly useful to establish a trend.
Another separate aspect of the Money Show is the numerical distribution of sponsors. One way to gauge the current investment climate is to simply count the number of presenters in any investment category, and the number of stalls purchased in the main exhibit hall.
Energy exploration and pipeline Limited Partnerships were plentiful. Natural gas was heavily supported. A few Real Estate outfits were represented. A larger than usual number of wealth management services were proffered. In general, these varied investment “opportunities” increased over last year’s Money Show sponsors.
That’s my incomplete summary of the Vegas sessions. Given the communities uneven forecasting record, a vigilant investor must receive their projections with measured skepticism.
It’s always a prudent policy to put things in context. Mark Twain cautioned that “whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect”.
I hope this summary is useful.
Best Regards.

How fast do you want people to respond? You didn't really describe the situation fully, as I'll explain.
Short answer, yes.
Longer answer - you talk about doing an exchange, but you also talk about a $75 fee. Every post I've ever seen about doing swaps at Fidelity has said that if they do the exchange for you (as opposed to doing a buy/sell yourself) is done without a transaction fee. So it would appear that you're thinking about doing the swap by placing the orders yourself.
Since the minimum for RSMCX in a Fidelity IRA is $500, we can reasonably assume you're talking about a taxable account. In a taxable account, there could be tax implications if you did a buy/sell yourself. Might not be - we don't know if you've got unrealized gains. Would make a difference in the answer.
So let's say you were in error about being charged $75 for the initial exchange, and were thinking about Fidelity doing the exchange for you. Have you checked with Fidelity - do you know whether they are able to execute this as a tax-free exchange? That requires cooperation and coordination between the brokerage and the fund family. Sometimes it can be done, sometimes not. I recently asked Fidelity about an exchange that would save me many fewer basis points than you're talking about, and they told me that they couldn't do a tax-free exchange (yet), but that I was hardly the first to ask about that particular exchange - they were working on it.
Would you be planning to purchase more? If so, in lump sums, or a few bucks at a time? In the former case, you could easily absorb the $5/trade that it would cost using their automated investment system. In the latter case, you might be better off keeping the more expensive share class, or perhaps setting up two positions - one with the shares exchanged, and one to hold new purchases.
You also didn't say how long you typically hold positions. If it's under a year, the answer would likely be no - you'd be at best saving a few bucks, at the cost of your time and effort. Of course, if you're retired/unemployed, and value your time so cheaply, the answer might again be different.
So now you've got 15 views and one response.

Dividends have been spotty with that fund; maybe look at holdings and recent reports to figure out what they're doing in that regard. Cap gains? Haven't been any since 2008, and with the price runup since then, the recent Japan uptick, & the 40-whatever percent turnover, I wouldn't bet against a cg distribution this December.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1105128/000145079113000102/rule497e.htm
Scout Funds
Scout International Discovery Fund
Supplement dated May 16, 2013 to the Prospectus dated October 31, 2012, as revised April 11, 2013
Upon the recommendation of Scout Investments, Inc. (the “Advisor”), the Scout Funds Board of Trustees has adopted a Plan of Liquidation to cease operations of the Scout International Discovery Fund (the “Fund”) and liquidate the Fund. The Advisor has determined that it is no longer economically viable to continue operating the Fund in view of its size and future prospects for growth. The liquidation is expected to be completed on or about June 28, 2013.
The Fund will be closed to new investors effective May 17, 2013. After May 17, 2013, if you sell all of the Fund’s shares in your account, you will not be able to buy additional shares of the Fund. Shareholders may sell Fund shares or exchange Fund shares for shares of other Scout Funds at any time prior to the liquidation date. Procedures for selling or exchanging your shares are contained in the “Selling Shares” and “Exchanging Shares” sections of the Fund’s Prospectus. Any shareholders that have not sold or exchanged their shares of the Fund prior to the liquidation date will have their shares automatically redeemed as of that date, with proceeds being sent to the address of record.
All holdings in the Fund’s portfolio are being liquidated. Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have requested payment in cash.
The liquidation of the Fund will constitute a taxable event for purposes of federal income taxes, except to the extent the Fund’s shares are held in a tax-advantaged product, plan or account. You also may be subject to state, local or foreign taxes on any liquidation proceeds you receive. By the liquidation date, the Fund expects to declare and pay one or more dividends to its shareholders to the extent necessary to avoid entity level tax. You should consult your financial or tax advisor for further information about the impact any tax consequences may have to your own circumstances.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS. If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you hold shares in a tax-deferred account, please consult with your retirement account trustee or custodian to determine how you may be able to re-invest your liquidation proceeds on a tax-deferred basis. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another IRA within 60 days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (tax-sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within 60 days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
You should keep this Supplement for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by calling (800) 996-2862.