quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Here is what I am looking at:

Symbol Name……………………………………………………1yr/3yr/5yr/10yr averages
FBGRX Fidelity Blue Chip Growth……………… 28.10% 26.52% 12.14% 19.21%
FPURX Fidelity Puritan Fund………………………15.34% 14.49% 8.35% 10.63%
FNCMX Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index…25.55% 21.83% 11.19% 17.03%
FGRTX Fidelity Mega Cap Stock Fund…………26.86% 22.44% 15.23% 15.49%
FTBFX Fidelity Total Bond……………………………4.66% 4.61% 1.11% 2.75%

You talk about "diversification", yet 3/4 of those equity funds are mega cap funds with significant overlap. (FPURX is the outlier, and is a much more balanced 60/40 S&P500/bond fund.)

Even if you hold all of those funds, nearly all of your money would be concentrated in just the top handful of tech companies: Nvidia, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc.

Quite the opposite of a diversified equity portfolio... Holding multiple funds doesn't make you "diversified" if those funds each consist of the same few stocks.

In addition, these are all actively managed funds with relatively high expense ratios, which is a hidden drag on the published returns.

quote:

Originally posted by doublesharp:
Buy Clorox under $100 and forget about it.

quote:

Originally posted by doublesharp:
just added some more ConAgra at $14.40. Paying near 10% div.

So help me understand, looking at both of these stocks their 10 year plus histories show all negative. Why are they a good deal? Just because they are low now and expected based on the nature of their business/products they will eventually go back up?

Or is it the dividend payments? Stock price stays fairly stable but you get 10% dividend every “x’ months/years as your “gain” instead of the stock value increasing?


I think I need to get a “Stock Market for Dummies” type of primer…


Here is Clorox, ConAgra is similar.






The complexities of individual stocks is why I like the idea of Mutual Funds. Less complicated and have the info on 1yr, 3yr, 5yr, etc. performance for some peace of mind.

I understand ETF’s are similar to MF, but don’t have the same 1/3/5/10 performance info to consider.

If looking at FPURX, also look at FBALX. The latter is usually slightly ahead of the former.



Source: https://www.fidelity.com/mutua...elity-funds/overview

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

Or is it the dividend payments?

Good quality dividend stocks are established companies paying out rational portions of profits as dividends rather than reinvesting into the company. Typically these are large companies in low growth un-sexy industries. Their stock prices go up slowly, while their dividends pay out steadily.

Their overall returns are generally the same as non-dividend companies' stock price growth. Thus it is generally no difference which way you go between investing in dividend or non-dividend stocks, assuming you reinvest the dividends somewhere.

A benefit of dividends is it is a way to harvest spendable cash without having to sell off shares. So it is simpler to implement than figuring how many shares of all the different investments to sell or when to do it.

Dividend Royalty companies are also a way to diversify into different companies than just selecting an index like the S&P or Nasdaq. They tend to be morein the way of value stocks rather than growth stocks. You'll get lower volatility to comfort your fear, too.

Clorox is considered a dividend aristocrat. To get that designation a stock must consecutively increase div annually for the past 25 years.

CLX is trading at a near 5 year low, pays 5% div and div is taxed favorably compared to interest and you have the possibility of considerable price appreciation.

ConAgra has more risk but offers more reward with a 10% div and CAG is trading at a 5 year low.

Both of these picks fit modified dogs of the dow strategy and over time that's a winner, ask Ben Graham or Warren Buffett.

Step Right Up and Lay Yo Money Down! Can't Win If You Don't Play!

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

FTBFX Fidelity Total Bond……………………………4.66% 4.61% 1.11% 2.75%

My opinion may be controversial, but is based on my experience and analysis...

Bond funds can and will lose money. Owning bonds directly yourself, not in a fund, can protect you if done right, but also the conventional advice to own a significant amount of bonds is flawed imho.

The advice is given to assuage the client's fears as stocks decline, because bonds tend to move opposite. But for total returns over time it is not a good choice imho.

Here's why; Big money cycles out of bonds if other vehicles look better, requiring the etf or mutual fund to sell for a loss. Usually if the economy is hot, inflation will be, too. Interest rates rise, so your pre-existing bonds go down. Stocks are rising. Big money dumps the bond fund, moving to stocks. The fund sells bonds at a loss to cash out those leaving. You get the loss.

The second aspect is that bonds pay a set rate usually less than the long term stock market rises. If you don't need money soon, you will always (but never actually guaranteed) do better with stocks in the long run. For long term money, more than 3-5 years, bonds are usually a lower return. Looking out 10, 20, or more years, stocks are a much better bet.

Bonds you own directly, with a timeline matching your needs for cash, can be a very good thing. US federal government bonds, not junk or questionable bonds.

Why? US Treasuries will pay fully at maturity. They pay some modest interest rate along the way. If you put money you will need in 12 months from now into a 52 week Treasury T-Bill, you will get it for sure in 52 weeks, with some interest that will be near to inflation.

But if you put that needed cash in a 10 year Treasury, it could be worth less in 52 weeks when you need to sell it. If interest rates go up, your bond goes down. If you're in a bond fund, it will have bonds maturing past your 52 week need, so it will go down if interest rates rise or even if the stock market gets hot without interest rates rising.

It all seems complicated and mysterious, but it is just different than stocks because of the finite timeline and predetermined interest rate. For money you don't need within a few years, diversified stocks will nearly always gain more than bonds. So there's no reason to own 40%, 50%, or any large portion of your portfolio in bonds. And certainly not in a bond fund imho. For money you will need in the next few years, putting it in safe interest paying vehicles will safeguard it, at the small cost of missing some upside in the stock market if it should go up.

Your brokerage will have an easy way to buy bonds. Let's say you will need $24k per year from your portfolio to meet your spending, on top of your Social Security and/or pension income. You would buy a $2000 52 week T-Bill today, which matures at the end of April next year. Next month you buy another $2k 52 week T-Bill. You would start this process with perhaps 3 years of money, which would be $72k. Everything above $72k in your portfolio is in diversified stocks/etf's. So every month you have $2k maturing into cash that you spend. You might take that $72k today and buy $2k of bonds which mature each month for the next 3 years. So the longest duration bond is 3 years. You don't care if they go up or down along the way, you just want that $2k each month.

If your stocks are down, just keep them. Deplete the bonds but don't worry. When stocks are up, once each year sell $24k of them to put into bonds, thus refilling the bond bucket. This way you don't sell stocks at a loss, and you safely have monthly spending cash.

^^^ Yeah, I don't have any interest in bonds.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
^^^ Yeah, I don't have any interest in bonds.

I was expecting someone to oppose the simplified language, but not as nicely done as that!

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
^^^ Yeah, I don't have any interest in bonds.

At 2%, nobody has any interest in bonds.

Probably not, but most bonds are paying closer to 4% these days.

Well, it was mostly a pun.

But you can get 4% on a high(not really) yield savings account without doing anything at no risk.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

You talk about "diversification", yet 3/4 of those equity funds are mega cap funds with significant overlap. (FPURX is the outlier, and is a much more balanced 60/40 S&P500/bond fund.)

Even if you hold all of those funds, nearly all of your money would be concentrated in just the top handful of tech companies: Nvidia, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc.

Quite the opposite of a diversified equity portfolio... Holding multiple funds doesn't make you "diversified" if those funds each consist of the same few stocks.

In addition, these are all actively managed funds with relatively high expense ratios, which is a hidden drag on the published returns.

I didn’t mean to suggest I was planning on getting all of them, they are just the main ones I am looking at.

As for expense ratios, I was of the understanding less than .5% was “good”.

Of those listed:
FBGRX .61%
FPURX .47%
FNCMX .29%
FGRTX .58%
FTBFX .45% (Bond fund, now off my list though)

I get that a couple are above .5%, but if they have substantially higher returns, is a slightly higher Expense ratio a no go?

Morning Star rates these all as low or below avg for “Expenses”, seems that Morning Star shows funds in the .73%-.74% as “avg”. What would do you and others consider a reasonable ratio?

These are the type of things I’m trying to figure out.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

I didn’t mean to suggest I was planning on getting all of them, they are just the main ones I am looking at.

As for expense ratios, I was of the understanding less than .5% was “good”.

Of those listed:
FBGRX .61%
FPURX .47%
FNCMX .29%
FGRTX .58%
FTBFX .45% (Bond fund, now off my list though)

I get that a couple are above .5%, but if they have substantially higher returns, is a slightly higher Expense ratio a no go?

Morning Star rates these all as low or below avg for “Expenses”, seems that Morning Star shows funds in the .73%-.74% as “avg”. What would do you and others consider a reasonable ratio?

These are the type of things I’m trying to figure out.

My rule of thumb is expense ration of 1% or less, those are all great expense ratios.

Well, my brain has been grinding on this for the past 8 hours or so nonstop.

I think I have settled on this mix:

FBGRX Blue Chip growth Fund
FXAIX 500 Index fund
FTIHX Total International Index
FSELX Select Semiconductors

The brunt of my rollover will be split between these four Funds and I’ll hold back 10-15% for potential individual stocks and a reserve to cover regular withdrawals without needing to sell stocks if they are in a dip.

My goal/hope is pretty much a hands off relatively safe core of funds to just let sit and grow giving me 10-12% annual return in a perfect world. Can weather as low as 6-8% in a dip if it doesn’t last too long and anything over that would be gravy.


Rollover check has been deposited to the account and should be clear by the end of the week.

I really appreciate all the pointers and input. Anyone see any glaring issues I missed?

Who here expects a big market drop when the oil supply issues rear their ugly heard and gasoline prices spike (along with every other industry problem with high fuel prices. Like airlines struggling when jet fuel prices spike or chemical plant feed stocks jump in price)?

The oil shortage does not seem to have hit and the market took off again after the initial drop. I know people have been calling for a market correction for years now, but it is bound to happen sooner or later. Nobody really knows but could high oil prices initiate it?

My accounts are doing well but I am beyond where I need to be for retirement (which is within 2.5 years max) so I have a lot in fixed. About 25% is in the market now and is doing well. I would actually like to see a market drop so I could buy during the dip like I did during covid.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
I get that a couple are above .5%, but if they have substantially higher returns, is a slightly higher Expense ratio a no go?

Morning Star rates these all as low or below avg for “Expenses”, seems that Morning Star shows funds in the .73%-.74% as “avg”. What would do you and others consider a reasonable ratio?

These are the type of things I’m trying to figure out.

Those are average for actively managed funds. But there are options for passively managed funds with expense rations in the 0.01-0.07% range. (Like FXAIX and FTIHX you mentioned in your latest post.)

And even a few options nowadays for 0.00% expense ratio funds as I mentioned earlier, like FZROX or FZILX.

The vast majority (90+%) of actively managed funds do not outperformed their passive index counterparts over the long run (10+ years). So unless you are one of the tiny few who simply end up lucky at gambling/timing, you're more likely to be paying 10x-100x the expense ratio for no benefit over the course of your investing lifetime compared to passive index investing, instead merely cutting into your long term returns to line the pockets of active fund managers and their firms.

quote:

The vast majority (90+%) of actively managed funds do not outperformed their passive index counterparts over the long run (10+ years).

Well, not quite... but I think your point is still valid. A financial advisor can help with choosing the right funds, and pruning and realigning the portfolio over time.

Active vs. passive fund performance

Among active funds — those with professional investment managers at the helm — 38% beat their passive peers in 2025, after accounting for fees, down from 42% in 2024, according to Morningstar’s semiannual Active/Passive Baromoter. The analysis evaluated the performance of 9,248 funds.

While it’s not unusual for active funds to miss the mark — just 21% of them survived and came out ahead over the 10 years ending in 2025, the research shows — there were shifts in which investment categories outperformed or fell short.

A smaller share of actively managed mutual funds and exchange-traded funds outperformed their index-based counterparts in 2025 than in the prior year, according to new research. Even so, both kinds of investments can have a place in your portfolio, financial advisors say.

“I don’t treat passive and active [funds] as rivals,” said certified financial planner Mike Casey, founder and president of AE Advisors in Alexandria, Virginia. “I treat them as teammates.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/2...-vs-index-funds.html

911Boss,

https://www.kiplinger.com/inve...tm_source=SmartBrief

The 25 Best No-Load Mutual Funds You Can Buy

The key to building wealth over the long term is buying high-quality, no-load mutual funds run by seasoned stock pickers. Here are our favorites.

cont...

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
911Boss,

https://www.kiplinger.com/inve...tm_source=SmartBrief

Some of these funds have turble (terrible) returns....

Market Correction Risk: Why Summer 2026 Looks Risky

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The S&P 500 hit a fresh record high last week. The median stock in the index is sitting 13% below its 52-week peak. That divergence is not a footnote or a curiosity. It’s the loudest warning the market has flashed since the dot-com era, and it’s arriving at the worst possible moment on the calendar. Market correction risk is climbing, and this summer it’s stacked on top of three other forces that almost never converge at the same time.

After three decades of watching market cycles play out, I’ve learned that the dangerous moments are those in which everything looks fine on the surface and rotten underneath. That’s exactly where we are right now. The market correction risk we’re staring at into the summer isn’t driven by a single bearish data point. It’s driven by four of them showing up together, and ignoring any of them would be a costly mistake.

https://www.zerohedge.com/mark...mer-2026-looks-risky