"But without any public disclosure of the assessed price or public disclosure of an unrealistic stale consensus price, there is much more limited liability and less of a paper trail for lawyers and prosecutors to use in pursuing the parties guilty of fraud or incompetence."
The amount of liability (losses due to mispricing) does not depend on disclosure. What is most affected by lack of disclosure is the probability of being caught and held accountable. The paper trail will exist with or without public disclosure - funds must be able to provide that for SEC compliance inspections. That data should be subject to discovery.
For example, here's an SEC compliance alert from July 2008:

The SEC staff conducts compliance examinations of ... investment companies ... to determine whether these firms are in compliance with the federal securities laws and rules ...
Many high yield municipal bond funds invest in securities that trade in the secondary market on an infrequent basis or never trade in the secondary market. ... Further, liquidity determinations for a high yield municipal bond fund are critical to ensure that the fund is able to redeem fund shares within seven days, as required under the Investment Company Act. ...
[E]xaminers: analyzed the credit quality of portfolio holdings; reviewed illiquidity levels as determined by fund management; compared sales prices to prior day valuations; compared bond valuations provided by pricing services to market transaction data; ...
[E]xaminers noted the following: ... Disclosure. High yield funds often did not disclose the increased risk with respect to liquidity and valuation, as required. For example, examiners commented in situations where the percentage of illiquid securities held by a fund dramatically increased and the fund did not disclose: that a dramatic increase in the percentage of the fund invested in illiquid securities occurred and the risks associated with such an increase; what effect, if any, the increase may have on the fund’s ability to redeem investor shares in a timely manner consistent with the federal securities laws; and what steps, if any, the fund may take to dispose of some of the illiquid securities to bring the percentage within a range appropriate to the circumstances.

One takeaway - even the (relatively simple to compute) illiquidity percentage was often not disclosed, even though such disclose is already required.
Every once in awhile there's merit in the position that the government should enforce existing regulations before adding new ones. What's the point in requiring funds to disclose what at best are noisy estimates of liquidity slices (3 day, 7 day, etc.) - estimates that would merely enhance the value of illiquidity percentage data - when the latter aren't being properly disclosed?
As to astute financial advisers making use of this "additional" information: how many advisers are making use of the new disclosure of (mark-to-market) NAV values for prime MMFs?

I prefer the risk of one or two examples of intentionally fudged or incompetently assessed numbers over a completely inaccurate consensus or a black box of ignorance. If you think about the case of valuing illiquid Uber private equity for instance, one approach would be to merely maintain the purchase price of the security on the books no matter what market conditions are. This was not uncommon in the past. Another approach would be to take the latest sale's price of the security the last time it traded even though that price is stale and could be months old and much could've changed in the interim. Managers instead use a fair value system in which they generally hire an independent third party to assess the value of the illiquid asset based on current market conditions. When they screw that assessment up or intentionally fudge the assessment, there are legal ramifications that often get resolved in court. But without any public disclosure of the assessed price or with instead public disclosure of an unrealistic stale consensus price, there is much more limited liability and less of a paper trail for lawyers and prosecutors to use in pursuing the parties guilty of fraud or incompetence.
Yes, you could argue that the average retail investor will never look at liquidity disclosures. Indeed, the average retail investor cares only about performance and now more recently fees. But professional analysts could use the data at places like Morningstar to come up with liquidity ratings for funds. The SEC can certainly used the data for its investigations. And institutional investors and investigative journalists can use the data as well. Financial advisers worth their salt most certainly could use the data so even if their clients don't care about it, they should and alert their clients if there is a problem.

He also seems to like commodities. Anyone have a favorite commodity fund? PCLDX has crossed my radar.
gundlachs-favorite-idea-in-the-financial-markets-today-is-commodities

Translation: Fund vendors, feel free to dump your speculative hard-to-value cr--p into vehicles that you then peddle to unwitting retail investors and pension funds. Because the financial sector must continue to privatize the profits, but socialize the risks and losses.
They have learned NOTHING from history. As many of us predicted would be the case.
So much #winning!

Looking at assets (or AUM) of financial institutions presents a distorted picture. Banks, investment companies, etc. control lots of assets, but those assets are owned by others. The value (market cap) of these companies is much smaller than their assets would suggest.
When thinking about settlements, revenue might be a better yardstick. It's hard to get firm numbers on TCW (privately held), e.g. Nippon Life just acquired 1/4 of TCW, but terms were not disclosed.
FWIW, Hoovers estimates TCW's annual revenue to be $278M. $30M would put a sizeable dent in that, let alone net profits.
http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/revenue-financial.the_tcw_group_inc.7beb84b4a92f7670.html

Hi Guys,
As Seth Kllarman is often quoted as saying "The stock market is the story of cycles and of the human behavior that is responsible for overreactions in both directions."
We all have a strong tendency to overreact. As Damon Runyon remarked: "The race is not always to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet".
So my answer to market gyrations is largely to ignore them. Far to many false signals. I do nothing short term. I stay the course and anticiate a 10% long term annual equity market return. I have both the patience and financial strength to do so. I invest with money that I definitely do not need in even the moderately long term. That's a position of strength that works to ease my decision making in the marketplace.
Best Wishes

I saw the report earlier and @Ted posted recent about the outflow of monies from high yield bonds; well okay, but.....
Okay, so the second biggest money outflow on record from high yield is probably worth some type of note in the financial press; but it tis a small percentage number in the "move".
Here are more details on fund flows from a current report:
First IG bond fund redemptions in 60 weeks ($2.0bn)
HY bond redemptions second highest on record ($10.9bn)
Largest EM debt outflows for 64 weeks ($2.9bn)
Modest muni fund outflows ($0.7bn)
Strong govt/Tsy fund inflows continue ($2.4bn)
Tiny TIPS inflows ($0.01bn)
Small bank loan fund outflows ($0.2bn)
Based upon the reported numbers above and the reported dollar value of high yield bonds in the U.S. from Forbes being at $1.3 trillion; the percentage change of the HY money outflow = .85% .
I'll use this example of percentage moves that "could" provide the same headlines, but you will not likely ever see a mention:
The U.S. 10 year note yield moves from 2% to 2.05% during a trading day. This is a 2.5% move. Ya won't see this reported, eh?
Anyway, always pay attention to how numbers are crunched. Yes, even small moves may be of value to monitor and other aspects may be causing traders in any market to adjust. What is the overall trend in any market sector and what do you feel is the reason?
These dollar values do not necessarily have any real value in the big picture. This would not be unlike my smile when I see a truck commercial on tv indicating a price drop or rebate or whatever they choose to phrase being at $10,000 of the MSRP. Okay, so what; in 1970 one could buy 3 fully loaded Chevy Impalas for about $10,000. We need reference points, yes???
No, we investors do not "play" in either a fair or concise world of money.
E.O.R. (end of rant)
Have a good remainder
Catch

hmm ... how does one become an AP? can you lose money? (seems so, not sure)

The short answer is that you sign a contract with an ETF distributor that allows you to buy and sell creation units of the ETF.
Here's a sample AP agreement I pulled up at the SEC site. (I've never read one of these, have no desire to; a quick skim of the headings suggests this agreement is pretty basic.)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1414040/000119312513132740/d513469dex99e2.htm
For a more complete answer, here's ICI's "The Role and Activities of Authorized Participants of Exchange Traded Funds".
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1414040/000119312513132740/d513469dex99e2.htm

What Is an AP?
An AP is typically a large financial institution that enters into a legal contract with an ETF
distributor to create and redeem shares of the fund. APs play a key role in the primary market for ETF shares because they are the only investors allowed to interact directly with the fund. ...

You're correct that there is some risk for APs. On the other hand, while they're allowed to make money via arbitrage (e.g. buying an ETF for less than the value of its components and then selling the underlying securities), they are not required to participate.
In theory you could have an ETF where no AP stepped in to stabilize its market price (relative to its NAV). ICI seems to think this isn't a big deal. Some people here, myself included, might disagree. In its paper, ICI writes:

It is important to remember that even if no APs ...step forward to create and redeem [ETF shares], the affected ETF shares would ... trade like closed-end funds. In addition, the effects would [be] contained to the affected ETFs and not transmitted to other ETFs or the underlying securities markets

Josh Brown, meet Jack Bogle (who never met an ETF he liked - by design they encourage trading).
Jack Bogle: the lessons we must take from ETFs (FT, Dec 11, 2016)

Individual investors are by far the largest holders of the Vanguard [traditional index funds], with annual redemption rates in the range of 8 per cent of assets. Banks and financial intermediaries hold almost 90 per cent of SPDR S&P 500, where the dollar value of annual turnover typically runs to some 3,000 per cent of assets

The only way an ETF can have an outflow is if authorized participants (APs) redeem shares. Otherwise, investors are merely trading among themselves, neither buying new shares nor redeeming existing shares.
APs act only if there is significant tracking error between the ETF price and the underlying portfolio value. For example, when the market is rising, but buyers aren't rushing to buy the ETF, the ETF price may lag. APs will swoop in and buy "cheap" (rising but underpriced) ETFs, redeem them, and then sell the underlying stocks at a profit.
So rapid outflow (redemptions by APs) could be caused by lack of ETF trading, just as it could be caused by excessive trading (e.g. pushing the ETF price down below the underlying portfolio's "true" value). A direct causal relationship between ETF outflow (i.e. AP redemptions) and ETF trading volume doesn't seem clear to me.
Regarding the "active" use of ETFs, Bogle looked at how owners of Vanguard index funds did during a few months of 2016. He wrote that if the investors bought a fund via ETF shares, they underperformed by around 1.6% over the period examined. But investors who bought the same fund via open end shares slightly outperformed the fund.

FYI: (Click On Article title At The Top Of Google Search)
The best financial advice for most people would fit on an index card.” That’s the gist of an offhand comment in 2013 by Harold Pollack, a professor at the University of Chicago. Pollack’s bluff was duly called, and he quickly rushed off to find an index card and scribble some bullet points — with respectable results.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=mFqAWs7OLoPKjwSQ5KHgDw&q=FT+Tim+Harford’s+guide+to+statistics+in+a+misleading+age&oq=FT+Tim+Harford’s+guide+to+statistics+in+a+misleading+age&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4036.9488.0.11068.5.4.0.0.0.0.91.292.4.4.0....0...1.1j2.64.psy-ab..1.3.200.0..0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i20i264k1.0.rh3bJ0L9pAg

This may help get my question answered...
https://finance.zacks.com/substantially-identical-mutual-funds-5850.html Avoiding a Wash Sale
An article by Lee C. McGowan, CFP in the Journal for Financial Planning gives some guidelines concerning replacement mutual funds and the substantially equal restriction. The article suggest that the following transactions should not trigger a wash sale: Selling an index fund and buying an actively managed fund. Selling an actively managed fund and buying an index fund. Selling an index fund and buying an index fund tracking a different stock index. Selling an actively managed fund and buying a fund managed by a different fund company and manager.

FYI: Money market funds are popular cash management vehicles as they seek to maintain a stable net asset value (NAV) of $1 per share. During the 2008 financial crisis, the NAV of Reserve Primary Fund fell below $1 per share or “broke the buck” causing massive redemptions and the panic soon spread to other funds. The short-term credit markets froze and the Treasury Department had to step in to stop the damage. This event highlighted the risks in money market funds.
Subsequently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced new rules and regulations to reduce the risks associated with money market funds. The enhanced disclosure requirements for the “shadow price,” or the market-based price of the fund portfolio introduced in January 2011, were a part of this wider money market fund reform.
In this article, we will examine what a shadow price is and the implications of the SEC ruling for investors.
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/education/understanding-shadow-price-money-market-fund/

FYI: Risk assets around the world are having one of their worst stretches of the decade right now, as inflation fears and concerns over interest rates have shattered a record period of tranquility in the financial markets. The return of “uncertainty” has brought with it a return of high volatility.
There’s no reason to believe that things will get better or worse in the near term because the emotions of millions of people cannot be predicted in real-time – and emotions are what dictate short-term prices, regardless of economics or underlying fundamentals. Traders will place their bets, some will win and some will lose.
But what should investors, as opposed to traders, be thinking right now?
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2018/02/06/what-investors-should-be-thinking-right-now-3/

FYI: The world's elite are partying like it's 2006, and that should probably scare us. Top business and political leaders, who met last week in the quaint ski chalet town of Davos, Switzerland, couldn't stop talking about the booming global economy, record stock markets and President Trump's tax cuts. They toasted the good times with bottles of bourbon that cost several thousand dollars each.
But there is something unnerving about all of this: 2006 was followed by 2008, the worst financial crisis of just about everyone's lifetime. Some of the wisest minds at Davos said it feels eerily similar right now, and that's not comforting.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/30/it-feels-a-bit-like-2006-for-stocks-and-the-economy-that-should-scare-us/?utm_term=.661bb5048b46

FYI: I am jealous.
Any time you can protect your money from the tax man, I want in.
George Papadopoulos is 50 years old and has a tax-free stash to cover health care expenses that is close to $100,000 and growing. It will continue to grow for the rest of his life just like an Individual Retirement Account.
“It’s a nice bucket of totally tax-free money,” the wealth manager from Novi, Mich., said.
The account is known as a Health Savings account, a financial device that is growing in popularity as the Baby Boomer generation chews through its golden years and their attendant health issues.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2018/02/01/here-is-another-totally-legitimate-way-to-shield-money-from-taxes/?utm_term=.080c24bc89a3

I simply asked you to substantiate or at least quantify your statement that taxes were close (very or not). Or was this just a gut feel based on a sample size of one?
In any case please let us know how your NJ friends are feeling about their taxes these days after you ask them. For NJ, emmigration has been a problem for over a decade, even if your friends are staying.

The increase in the loss of tax revenue from New Jersey has plagued the state since 2004, when state legislators imposed the infamous “millionaire’s tax.” The inception of this tax, coupled with New Jersey’s already high property and estate taxes, leaves no mystery about why the term “tax migration” has become a buzzword among state residents and financial, legal, and political professionals.

https://regentatlantic.com/File Library/Tax paper/Exodus-on-the-Parkway-2-25-14-FINAL-VERSION.pdf
I'm pretty sure that Danoff doesn't care what his taxes are. The fact that some of your neighbors are inured to rising taxes doesn't mean the other 99% take them in stride.
Weston median income (2015): $201K (from Census survey).
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/12/18/town-town-look-income-massachusetts/cFBfhWvbzEDp5tWUSfIBVJ/story.html
(CNN thinks it's over $600K, but you can't trust everything you read on the web.)

>> talk radio entertainment host who has parlayed ...
That's a bit much.
In listening to RE for over a decade, I think it is, I've never heard him say anything that needed to be salted, or not more than much financial opining. Less, rather, actually.
His firm has won all sorts of awards (mags like Barron's, I think) as a fin adviser, fwiw.
>> It sounds like Edelman doesn't comprehend Vanguard's thinking.
Well, reread the OP piece; seems to me that's not exactly what he's said to have said. But yes, interesting he charges his age cohort does not get blockchain. I concur in the view that it will be change things bigtime, and many fin people smarter than I have the same take.

Rick Edelman is a talk radio entertainment host who has parlayed that into financial empire. Take what he says with a grain of salt.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
-Innovation and disruptive change continue to benefit a relatively small group of mega-
cap companies. Despite recent gains, valuations for these stocks still appear reasonable.
Technologies such as electric vehicles and autonomous driving suggest that the transportation industries could be next in line for rapid transformation
-For the first time since the global financial crisis, the world economy is in a synchronized
expansion, driving steady earnings growth in most markets.
Among developed equity markets, Europe and Japan appear more attractive than the U.S. based on improving economic fundamentals, diminished political risk, and potential upside for corporate earnings. Valuations are also modestly cheaper in Europe compared with the U.S.
-Barring unpredictable political or economic shocks, the global earnings recovery should
continue in 2018. However, year-over-year comparisons will grow more challenging.
-Whether recent low market volatility persists in 2018 remains to be seen, but we do not
believe low volatility in itself predicts that a significant correction is imminent

link to report:
2018 Global Market Outlook