My own owned ETF is an iShares beast connected to BlackRock. I'm wondering what will happen to my stake in EWS. Paying a fee to buy, sell or add shares is a no-go for me.

Fidelity and iShares have a partnership deal that goes back around 15 years, before Fidelity created its own ETFs (aside from ONEQ), before brokerages started selling stocks and ETFs commission-free.
Part of that partnership is to offer iShares NTF. Even if every broker starts charging fees to trade ETFs, the big ETF players will still be cutting deals like this. This tends to support yogi's speculation that only the boutique firms will be subject to ETF fees by brokerages.
https://www.etftrends.com/2013/03/fidelity-ishares-expand-etf-partnership-what-does-it-mean/ (2013)
Another part of the Fidelity/iShares deal is that Fidelity will push iShares. You can see the favored status that Fidelity gives iShares on its ETF research page. It highlights Fidelity and iShares ETF only.
https://digital.fidelity.com/prgw/digital/research/etf
I figure this is something like the deal that Schwab has with marketing T. Rowe Price funds.
https://riabiz.com/a/2022/4/19/t-rowe-price-gains-house-brand-status-on-schwabs-active-fund-platform-and-will-pay-up-to-10-million-yearly-for-the-honor-but-the-deal-is-not-without-potential-conflicts-of-interest

I totally agree. It is frustrating to watch. Nothing that we can probably do.
Except, maybe use this information/observation to avoid losses or parlay to a buying opportunity. Similar to Dotcom or the Great Recession or 2022s inflation. , if one is very certain that a big reckoning is coming, they must be ways to use that effectively.
My notions are:
•Reduce risk exposure significantly. After 3 years of phenomenal gains, stepping back shouldn't be too hard to swallow.
•Identify the best no/low risk parking positions. Perhaps, quality bond funds with a track record in difficult times?
•Look to quality fixed income that might benefit from rate reductions, despite inflationary pressures.
•Find alternative investments best suited to weather this particular set of circumstances.
•Wait for an appropriate re-entry point to riskier assets.
I'd like to hear ideas, thoughts, even helpful criticisms. Maybe we can form some more detailed plans/ideas?

long IAV article hit these points. fee drop was unrelated to attracting index crowd and i doubt that it ever will ever be for non closet-indexer funds.
"...At the end of 2018, the six PRIMECAP-run funds held a combined $114b. Since then, investors have pulled more money out than they’ve put in every single month but two—a cumulative $105b in net outflows. Yet, thanks to market gains, the funds now hold roughly $130b in assets.
...
First, persistent outflows likely contributed to the team trimming winners too early. ...
Second, the outflows help explain why the PRIMECAP-run funds routinely distribute sizable capital gains...
Third, while I described PRIMECAP Management as resilient, outflows do take a toll...."
odds favor longtermers w/low basis. less clear for new $ in taxable accts.

Howdy mark,
Funny you should mention selling your pre-1964 silver coins. You might have a bit of a problem in the short run. The shortage of physical silver bullion to back their paper promises in London has created a huge profit opportunity for anyone able to ship it in 1000 oz bars of .999 pure. Your 1964 quarter is worth a little over $9.00 in melt value. Ah, but the refiners don't have time to purify it to .999. Ergo, many are refusing to purchase it for that reason. Now, please don't be alarmed, as this too will pass and the value is still there. It's just the problem in London is world-wide in scope and they're well and truly screwed and desperate of bullion. Oh, and as an aside, the premiums on 90% silver are almost nil making it the very best buy for the long run.
The London Metals Exchange's problem is akin to that of fiat currencies. Nothing to keep politicians from running the printing presses day and night. It occurs very often where the paper contracts for silver exceed the amount of available bullion to back them up. This hasn't mattered in the past, because when the contracts come due, they settle the gains/losses and and roll the contracts over. The problem now is many folks are saying, 'Er, no. I think I'll take delivery of the bullion.' Ooops! They don't have it. And silver is way different from gold as the supply is so constrained. You make solar panels? Paper promises don't work.
December is a delivery month for the contracts AND you have some huge players taking delivery and neither London nor Chicago has the bullion to deliver on their paper promises.
and so it goes,
thanks for the snow,
peace,
rono

Junkster: When any indicator, including sentiment, reaches never before or rarely before seen levels that is as good a buy signal as you could want. We had two of those last Thursday and Friday. Check this thread where I mentioned them. Also I know several traders who have been very successful using the CNN Fear and Greed index as a buy signal when it reaches single digits and synthesizing that with other indicators. Good traders are into synthesizing a variety of indicators into a coherent trading plan. Trading is not easy and anyone who tells you it is, is a crook, con man, and charlatan.

And that’s exactly what we should be discussing. Posting weekly indicators without any interpretation is just that, raw data. No one ever said this would be easy. I’ve been making calls for years, though I no longer do so on this site. These unique situations only come up a few times a year, and that’s precisely why they matter.
Buy signals are generally easier to identify—though still not easy—than sell signals, especially after a major decline. My inbox was filled with articles urging people to sell stocks a couple of weeks ago, but I said to simply hold. Most of these commentators have been saying the same things for years. When the market drops just 4–5%, you suddenly see a flood of negative articles; when stocks go up, they pivot to talking about bubbles and overvaluation.
Often, markets decline because of truly unique situations:
2008: MBS crisis
2018: The Fed raised rates 3–4 times
2020: COVID
2022: The Fed committed to rapid rate hikes after inflation surged
2025: Liberation Day
These are the kinds of events that move markets: rare, specific, and often unpredictable.

I’ve always maintained (in agreement with Jacobson) that bonds were more complex and more difficult to understand than stocks. And many who speak with an air of authority know much less than they think they do about bonds. Wanna pull up all the bond related 2020 threads and see how many were predicting an epic bond blowoff 1-2 years out? Jacobson more or less side stepped the larger issues with stocks like transparency, economic cycles, being superseded by new technology (ie Kodak), and the euphoria around individual stocks or segments of the market that can arise and persist for years if not decades.
What he and others here have said about bond indexes vs managed funds agrees with what I’ve heard. However, you take on more manager risk with actively managed bond funds. When the going gets tough you might be more inclined to blame the manager and bail, whereas it’s pretty hard to fault an index. And for at least some investors the lower fee bond indexes are not a bad idea, My plain vanilla is AGZD, which tracks an index of rate-hedged high quality bonds, is good enough for my needs. Transparency? ISTM there’s less with a managed bond fund then an index - at least in the higher quality realms..
There was a nice line in the interview about the rare breed who succeeds at successfully timing junk bond markets. Reminded me of one of our own.

[snip]
If your goal is to earn more with lower volatility, which is where I am since retirement,
then a few principles stand out:
Consider funds from small to medium-sized shops; they often have more flexibility
and can uncover opportunities larger firms can’t.
Newer funds can sometimes perform even better because they’re more nimble.
Don’t obsess over expense ratios; what ultimately matters is performance after fees.
The bond market is unique; certain segments can outperform for only a few months (sometimes longer),
so active trading and tactical skill really matter.
Timing is also critical, especially avoiding major drawdowns like in 2020, 2022, and 2024.
[snip]

For those who haven't listened to the podcast or read the transcript,
I would like to clarify that these "principles" were never mentioned during the extensive conversation.

Great interview—excellent explanation of why bonds are different and how skilled managers can take advantage of inefficiencies in the bond market.
If your goal is to earn more with lower volatility, which is where I am since retirement, then a few principles stand out:
Consider funds from small to medium-sized shops; they often have more flexibility and can uncover opportunities larger firms can’t.
Newer funds can sometimes perform even better because they’re more nimble.
Don’t obsess over expense ratios; what ultimately matters is performance after fees.
The bond market is unique; certain segments can outperform for only a few months (sometimes longer), so active trading and tactical skill really matter.
Timing is also critical, especially avoiding major drawdowns like in 2020, 2022, and 2024.
I listened to most of the interview, but I didn’t hear much about where to invest now, which is ultimately the guidance most of us are looking for.
CEFs? I only use them when I’m completely out of the market due to very high risk, like in 2022, when they can drop sharply within days. In those situations I trade them for hours. Other than that, I don't touch them.

Following are excerpts from a current report in El Pais USA:
Their wealth has fallen from $7.7 billion at the beginning of September to the current $6.7 billion, according to Bloomberg. The memecoin linked to the president has plunged 85%, while Trump Media’s shares have tumbled 70%

In just over a month, the crypto market has lost $1.2 trillion in value. The steady declines since mid-October have erased much of the gains received by both small and large investors. Among the latter is a very well-known figure: U.S. President Donald Trump, who is also partly responsible for the euphoria the sector experienced until October.
But the Trump effect has completely vanished, with digital assets falling back to levels seen before his term. His direct support of the sector and entry into crypto businesses fueled short-term excitement, but investors have forgotten about that now. Today, the focus of the debate is the potential AI bubble and interest-rate cuts. And the Trump business empire has felt the shock of reality: since September, it has lost at least $1 billion of its fortune (dropping from $7.7 billion at the beginning of September to the current $6.7 billion), according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a decline largely due to the Trump family’s growing ties to crypto projects.
The Trump family went all-in on digital assets: they launched tokens, created companies, invested in the industry, pardoned convicted crypto tycoon Changpeng Zhao, and legislated in favor of the sector, pushing major cryptocurrencies to historic highs. But in this market — marked by extreme volatility and speculation — no one is spared, not even the president. A good example of this was the launch, a few days before Trump’s inauguration, of the memecoin $TRUMP, a token with no backing whatsoever beyond being linked to the tycoon’s image. Minutes after its release, euphoria broke out and the token reached a value of more than $15 billion. But like every speculative wave, the excitement was short-lived, and its price plunged by up to 76% within a few hours.
In these past months, $TRUMP has gone through ups and downs, but since mid-August its declines have intensified, and it has lost around 40% of its value; since its launch, it is down 85%. As of today, the size of the Trump family’s stake in the project is unclear; according to Bloomberg estimates, those close to him hold around 40% of all outstanding tokens. At current prices, that stake is worth about $310 million, implying a loss of $117 million since the end of August.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Trump family’s crypto empire. With their flagship project, the crypto platform World Liberty Financial, they issued the WLFI token, which has plunged 38% since early September: those close to the president hold an amount of tokens that reached an accounting value of roughly $6 billion at its peak, but which today are worth half that — about $3.15 billion — according to Bloomberg data. These assets, however, are not included in the agency’s calculations, as they are not traded on organized markets.

"For roughly 40 years, PRIMECAP was paid a simple, asset-based fee: a set percentage of each fund’s assets, billed quarterly. In the six months ending in March 2025—the most recent data available—
Vanguard paid PRIMECAP Management nearly $113 million to run PRIMECAP (VPMCX),
PRIMECAP Core (VPCCX) and Capital Opportunity (VHCOX).
Annualized, that’s roughly $225 million in fees."
"Big numbers, yes—but on a base of roughly $110 billion in assets, it works out to about 0.20%—
a reasonable price for access to one of the industry’s most successful stock-picking teams."
"From now on, though, PRIMECAP will be paid differently: a base fee plus or minus a performance adjustment.
In English, PRIMECAP will earn more when it beats its benchmark and less when it lags it."
https://www.independentvanguardadviser.com/weekly-brief-perspective-precision-and-primecap/?ref=the-independent-vanguard-adviser-newsletter
Edit: PRIMECAP fund ticker corrected.

Yesterday at the close went back into emerging markets equity. I thought my exit there in ARTZX posted on October 10 would go down as a major mistake. But not quite. Back in with small positions in ARTZX and SIVLX. Small positions can lead to large losses so using 3% trailing stop. Largest holding remains emerging market debt. Using HOSIX in lieu of cash.
Everyone is anticipating another Zweig thrust being triggered a week from Friday. Be interesting if it kicks in near the highs instead of its usual after a large decline like this past April and other market bottoms. But we need another week of gains for it to trigger.
Edit. AGEYX and EIDOX in energing market debt. Mentioned them several times in the past and pleasantly surprised AGEYX doesn’t seem to be held by anyone here.

Hi @hank et al
I recall others here, over the years writing about similar restrictions at other organizations, too, regarding restrictions; trading mutual funds (OEF's).
This is a general Fidelity overview, believed to be accurate. Full legal details are available at their web site, regarding trading restrictions.
--- Fidelity has strict rules regarding trading its own funds to discourage excessive, short-term trading. These include a "roundtrip" policy that blocks future purchases for 85 days after a second roundtrip is made within 90 days or the fourth across all Fidelity funds in a 12-month period.
Other rules include specific trading restrictions for different account types, such as pattern day trading restrictions for margin accounts, and restrictions for "good faith" and "free riding" violations in cash accounts. 
Excessive trading policy Roundtrip limit: A roundtrip is defined as a purchase and then a sale or exchange sell of a mutual fund within 30 days.
Second roundtrip: A second roundtrip in a single fund within 90 days results in an 85-day block on purchases and exchanges for that fund.
Four roundtrips: Making four roundtrips across all Fidelity funds within 12 months will trigger an 85-day block on purchases and exchanges for all accounts linked to the same Social Security number.
Exemptions: These rules generally do not apply to amounts under \(\$25,000\), Fidelity Money Market Funds, dividend/capital gains reinvestments sold within 30 days, or through automatic investments/withdrawals. 
Account-specific restrictions Margin accounts: Day trading is defined as buying and selling the same security on the same day. Pattern day traders must maintain a minimum equity of \(\$25,000\).
Cash accounts: "Good faith" violations can occur by selling a security purchased with unsettled funds before it settles. A "free riding" violation occurs when you sell a security without ever having paid for it.
Consequences: Three good faith violations or one free riding violation in a 12-month period will result in a 90-day restriction requiring you to trade only with settled funds.
Day trade calls: For margin accounts, a day trade call is generated when opening trades exceed your day trade buying power and are closed the same day.
Meeting calls: You have five business days to meet a day trade call.
Restrictions: Three day trade liquidations (selling an existing position to meet a day trade call) within a 12-month period will result in a restricted status. 
Other trading rules 
Day trading: A "pattern day trader" is generally defined as someone who executes four or more day trades within a 12-month period.
Good faith violations: Selling a security that was purchased with unsettled funds before the funds have settled is a "good faith" violation.
Free riding violations: This occurs when you sell a security without ever having paid for it.
Restrictions: Violations can lead to trading restrictions, such as the 90-day restriction to only use settled funds. 

Dividends and capital gains are automatically reinvested for most of my mutual funds and ETFs.
Distributions for one mutual fund and an individual stock (only individual stock owned)
are directed to a MMF since my goal is to decrease their allocations within a taxable account.

Both actually.
We take some dividends, and some capital gains, from the taxables while the IRA's reinvest. When we hit RMD's the taxables will go entirely to reinvesting.

I let the mutual funds reinvest the divs and cap gains in Dec, then typically shave off a few or several thousand $ in January. I take care of some self-imposed obligations that way. I've been reinvesting single-stock divs. Thankfully, we still do not need the money to pay current bills.

With "near cash" funds (think, e.g. ICSH) in taxable accounts, I take all divs in cash. These funds tend to have monthly distributions.
Any time I wanted to take cash out of a "near cash" account, I would have to sell shares. If those shares were sold at a loss and divs were getting reinvested monthly, then the loss would be treated as a wash sale. That is, to the extent that divs within 30 days were reinvested.
Messy bookkeeping with reinvested divs. Besides, keeping the divs in cash doesn't cost much in the way of lost returns (vs. keeping in a "near cash" account).
Divs from all tax-sheltered funds are reinvested. I prefer to control the timing when I take money from a fund rather than take some money out simply because the fund chose Dec 31 to distribute income, or Dec 22 (or whenever) to distribute cap gains.
In a taxable account I'll reinvest unless I'm looking to make small allocation changes. Then I'll use the divs for buying different funds. This way I avoid realizing an additional cap gain by selling shares of the old fund. (Not an issue in tax-sheltered accounts.)
@Mark makes an excellent point about reinvesting divs anytime there's a DRIP program (stock or CEF) that offers extra shares at a discount. Don't leave money on the table.

The very unusual situation of poor sentiments and indicators near market highs has been noted in the media and at MFO. The K-economy explanation sounds reasonable.
... I don't time and always have market exposure suitable for my comfortable sleep level.
As a corollary, I won't buy when sentiments and indicators are very positive.
Should one buy here? There seem selected opportunities - lots of stuff is lagging in this narrowly led market. But beware that the lagging stuff would also be hit hard in any market selloff.

At present my "comfortable" level is far lower than it has been for a very long time.
I agree that even "defensive" equity positions are likely to get hit. Perhaps, not as bad as the high flyers. Best to be cautious, and wait for better entry points.
I am unloading my smallish foreign equity position today. It seems like a good starting point to raise a little more dry powder. I am also thinking about locking in gains in my tech funds (Roth/TIRA). Maybe my growth funds, next.
Should I be worried that funds I own, which are up 117% since jan 1, 2023, might go up a little more? Nah. The thought of buying them back at steep discounts is a bit thrilling though.

Here an animation that does a nice job of illustrating how, over any period of time, the S&P 500 has always had a group of over weighted (by cap weight) set of companies, that move in and out as well as up and down on the top ten list.

S&P top ten over time:
The-10-Largest-SP-500-Companies

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1175813/000139834425021228/fp0096306-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0096306-1_497.htm
CONESTOGA FUNDS
CONESTOGA MID CAP Fund
Supplement dated November 24, 2025
to the Prospectus dated January 31, 2025
THIS SUPPLEMENT PROVIDES NEW AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND THAT CONTAINED IN THE PROSPECTUS. THIS SUPPLEMENT SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROSPECTUS.
On November 19, 2025, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Conestoga Funds determined to close and liquidate the Conestoga Mid Cap Fund (the “Fund”), effective on or about January 31, 2026. This decision was made after careful consideration from the Fund’s investment adviser, Conestoga Capital Advisors, LLC, of the Fund’s asset size, strategic importance, current expenses and historical performance. In connection with the pending liquidation, the Fund will discontinue accepting orders for the purchase of Fund shares after the close of business on November 24, 2025.
On or around the close of business on January 31, 2026, the Fund will distribute pro rata all of its assets in cash to its shareholders, and all outstanding shares will be redeemed and cancelled. Prior to that time, the proceeds from the liquidation of portfolio securities will be invested in cash equivalent securities or held in cash. During this time, the Fund may hold more cash, cash equivalents or other short-term investments than normal, which may prevent the Fund from meeting its stated investment objective.
BECAUSE THE FUND WILL BE CLOSED AND LIQUIDATED ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 31, 2026, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER SELLING YOUR SHARES PRIOR TO THAT DATE. You may sell shares on any business day by contacting us directly by mail or by telephone at 1-800-494-2755. If you invest through a financial institution, you should contact the financial institution for more information on how to sell your shares. If you still hold shares of the Fund on or about January 31, 2026, we will automatically redeem your shares for cash and remit the proceeds to you (via check or wire) based on the instructions listed on your account.
The sale or liquidation of your shares will generally be a taxable event. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation.
Please contact Conestoga Funds at 1-800-494-2755 for more information.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

Following are edited excerpts from a current report in The Washington Post:
A few trillion-dollar companies are powering the market’s gains. Here’s what’s happening to most other businesses in the United States.

On its face, 2025 has been a good year for the stock market. The S&P 500 was dragged out of its tariff-induced springtime slump by a small subset of AI-forward power players whose spectacular gains defied an otherwise softening economy. Even now, despite a rocky November, the benchmark index is up more than 12 percent since the start of the year.
A group of trillion-dollar brands known as the “Magnificent Seven” — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla — has been at the forefront of those gains, thanks in large part to corporate spending and intense interest in artificial intelligence. But economists and investors are raising concerns about the companies that aren’t part of the AI investment boom — in other words, most businesses in the United States.
An index that leaves out the seven high-flying tech firms — call it the S&P 493 — reveals a far weaker picture, as smaller and lower-tech companies report lackluster sales and declining investment.
“You have the headwind of de-globalization and tariffs, and the tailwind of AI … those forces are battling to a draw, and in that crosswind you get winners and losers,” said Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi. “Anything that is not connected to AI is throttled lower.”

                        Strip out the Magnificent 7 and the rally looks less impressive

Some experts are worried that the S&P 500, an index of large-company stocks that underpins the fortunes of millions of Americans with 401(k) and other retirement accounts, has become too reliant on the Magnificent Seven; they collectively account for about a third of its value, leaving the broader stock market heavily dependent on the continued success of “the AI trade,” says Torsten Slok, chief economist at the private equity firm Apollo Global Management.
“There is no diversification in the S&P 500 anymore in my view … it is all the AI story now,” Slok said.
Publicly traded small and midsize companies have taken a beating by comparison. The Russell 2000 lost 4.5 percent in the one-month period leading up to Friday, compared with a loss of around 2 percent for the S&P 500. A little more than a third of the companies in the Russell 2000 index either don’t make money or are losing money.
The market’s concentration in Big Tech has also given rise to concerns about what would be left if an AI bubble were to burst. Those fears have been amplified in recent weeks as Big Tech names suffered a modest sell-off, with some analysts raising concerns that the AI industry has overspent on infrastructure at a time when the technology’s actual profit-generating potential is still nascent.
Tech stocks have endured a series of rocky sell-offs since late October, with the tech-heavy Nasdaq index falling around 7 percent from its Oct. 29 peak. Markets rebounded Friday, with the index trimming some of its losses from earlier in the week.
Slok, the Apollo economist, says he is particularly worried about the recent AI losses because so much of the recent economic growth has been shored up by free-spending wealthy households. A deep correction in AI stocks, if it ever arrived, could threaten the “wealth effect” that is doing so much to prop up the economy, Slok warned.