stillers: BTW, I'm starting to feel genuine sorrow for your family. And I consider that a big step on my part.
FD: Your usual, I post about investments and you troll my thread and attack me personally. After years that you claimed I don't have a clue, would never retire, and would never make it in retirement, the opposite is true. I retired years ago in 2018. Our portfolio size grew from 25+ times our expenses to close to 50 times, not including SS. All documented (here). We keep spending money on weeks of travel around the world, restaurants, and a new vehicle and are extremely busy. Life is good, no need to feel sorrow, unless you are talking about yourself.

Several past posts:
1) "MSF describes it—blend—a blue chip stock with its heady growth days in the past.
"Agree with msf and Lewis assessment. The fast growing business (iPhones, computers, music, and AppleTV) since Steve Jobs's returned has plateaued. In some area Apple is trailing."
2) "Growth is about revenues, cash flow and earnings versus the benchmark and industry peers and it’s forward looking, not from five or ten years ago."
FD: Reality check, after close to 3 years, Apple proved to be MORE THAN JUST A BLEND BLUE CHIP
One year performance......AAPL +12.3....VFINX -6.6%......JPM -23.7%
Three year performance...AAPL +49.65...VFINX +14.9%...JPM +6.1%
In just 3 years AAPL made 174% more than VFINX(SP500)....221.8 vs 47.8%...see (chart)

Checking again, several posters claimed that Apple is just another blue chip + its heady growth days in the past.
Apple still beat SPY for 1,3,5,10,15 years. See the chart for one year (https://schrts.co/FgWjnDmE) Apple made 4+ times more.

Don't always believe what someone writes and don't judge a man unless you have first hand knowledge. Especially after he's gone.
Rest in peace Mr Zell

”I have seen too many comments here disrespecting the departed.There will never be another investor like Mr Zell! RIP”

Awe com’on No one is “disrespecting the departed”. Some are merely suggesting that when he was alive some of us found him flawed. I think LB’s links speak for themselves. If dying made you a saint, we’d all be bound for sainthood!
RIP Sam.
BTW - I read and appreciated the tribute to Zell in Barron’s @yogibearbull summarized. It was deeply moving and fitting. And the writer, who was close to Zell, show-cased his generous side. There was a time when I felt I learned a lot from his interviews. Not so much in recent years … but hey, I don’t want to sound disrespectful.

If Vanguard hires a single subadvisor for, say, 0.50%, and that subadvisor has its own branded funds that it charges 1% for, what is the motivation for investors to buy any of the subadvisor's higher-cost branded funds? A single sub-advisor Vanguard fund runs the risk of cannibalizing that sub-advisor's external business. ...
Wellington and Primecap are interesting exceptions, but then Primecap only opened its branded funds when Vanguard closed its Primecap subadvised ones to new investors, so there was less risk of cannibalization. Meanwhile, Wellington has been with Vanguard since its founding, and the relationship there is a unique and enduring one.

Does Wellington have its own branded funds? It doesn't seem to fit this pattern.
Primecap (VPMCX) opened and closed at various times. If Primecap was waiting until the Vanguard funds closed, it looks like the third time was the charm.
In 1994, its minimum was $3,000 (or $10,000; the prospectus is gives both figures). March 7, 1995, Vanguard closed the fund and limited additional investments to $25K/year. On Jan 1, 1996, Vanguard unambiguously reduced the minimum to $3K, were fund were to reopen. On Oct 31, 1996, the fund did reopen. The fund was closed again on April 22, 1998, with a $25K/year limit on additional investments. On April 23, 2001, the fund once again reopened, but this time with a $25K minimum and a 1% redemption fee for shares redeemed within five years of purchase. Finally, several months after Vanguard closed the fund again on March 4, 2004, Primecap Odyssey launched its funds in November 2004.
The initial management fee of 0.60% was slightly higher than the Vanguard management fee at the time of 0.48%. Though counterbalancing that relatively slight difference was the five year redemption fee that Vanguard imposed and Primecap Odyssey did not.
An exception that may prove the rule is Vanguard Global Environmental Opportunities Fund (VEOIX). It began Nov 22, 2022, a bit more than a year after the management firm, Ninety One, started it own fund, Global Environment Fund ZGEIX.
Yogi may be right about a new company looking to grow AUM, even if it has to give up 20 basis points in fees. Though if that were its objective, Vanguard hasn't been too successful at that. Each fund has only about $40M AUM, and looking at the Vanguard fund, half of its AUM came at launch (seed money?).

@WABAC: thanks for your reply. During the relatively short time I have been invested in or following the Cambria funds (in my case SYLD, EYLD, and FYLD) I am struck by the streakiness of their performance. SYLD is hurting this year (down 6+%) after very good years in 21 and 22. I agree that Faber’s approach should produce results, but it does appear that one needs to be patient. Value is not in favor in 23.

My guess is that Vanguard is playing a low-cost hardball with subadvisors.
ONE subadvisor may be lured by big AUM initially, or may be in the early stages of its business, but it may later want more money or may just close the funds (e.g. PRIMECAM subadvised funds). We also saw this when Vanguard Windsor II was started years ago, and other advisors were added as its AUM grew (to higher AUM than the original VG Windsor) - and now, the initial advisor isn't even in the picture.
Vanguard tries to play its multiple subadvisors against each other using AUM shifts as carrots and sticks, and they are accountable to Vanguard only, not to each other. But what may be a good idea with 2 subadvisors, becomes problematic with 4 or more subadvisors. Many VG funds with too many subadvisors have issues (VG Explorer, etc) in that VG and/or subadvisors don't know what they are doing.
VG can be tough - it did fire GMO for funds, and MSCI on indexing. VG also shutdown VG Convertible that was subadvised by Oaktree Capital (co-owned by famed Howard Marks).
There is a saying, there can be too much of a good thing, or, that cake is good for dessert, but you cannot live on it. It's the same with subadvisors - 2 may be good, but 4 are bad.

Sometimes I wish Vanguard would adopt Harbor funds model when it comes to choosing their subadvisors. Harbor typically uses a single advisor for each fund, and they get swapped out if they don’t meet their expectation on performance. A single advisor would allow the manager(s) to focus and execute their strategy whereas multiple managers can add more complexity rather than more value to the fund. One exception I can think of is Vanguard International Growth, VWILX, where Baillie Gifford Overseas and Schroder (both growth managers) work well together for many years.
Since 2022, Harbor offer actively managed ETFs so that you can gain access to these excellent managers from your brokerages.
https://harborcapital.com/products/all/etf

I am a long term investor with TRowe Price, and they have maintained large stakes in foreign stocks and bonds in their allocation funds for many, many years. Over the past decade or so, this has been a huge drag on the returns for their balanced, allocation and target date funds. TRPs best performing funds are PRWCX and other funds that primarily invest in domestic stocks.
For comparison, I have had large holdings in TRPBX (TRP Spectrum Moderate Allocation) and FBALX (Fidelity Balanced) for 20+ years. Two decades ago, their performances were pretty comparable, but FBALX has greatly outperformed TRPBX over the past 10 years or so. Ironically, FBALX has continued to outshine TRPBX in 2023, despite the recent awakening of foreign stock markets.

"The S&P 500 has posted an annualized 12.2% return through April, a figure that includes last year’s 18.11% selloff, while the Agg returned an annualized 1.32% for the period, again, including 2022’s 13.01% swoon."
"Many an active manager has struggled to match these returns and investors have voted with their wallets, pulling trillions of dollars out of active funds and pouring them into passively run funds and ETFs. From 2013 through 2022, active mutual funds and ETFs had outflows of $1.5tn, while passive vehicles took in $5.1tn."
Hopefully, the article linked below is accessible without a CityWire account...
Link

Thanks for the news. This will impact California’s housing market significantly. Correct me if I am wrong, carrying home owner insurance is a requirement by the mortgage providers. Who is going to cover wildfire hazard now?
Next natural disaster to consider is hurricanes. The frequency and severity are getting worse in recent years. Truly a mess for both homeowners and the insurance business.

Crocker Bank - for which Paul Williams and Roger Nichols wrote We've Only Just Begun.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/bank-commercial-inspired-the-carpenters-weve-only-just-begun.html/
The Crocker commercial, performed by Paul Williams:

Years ago, when we tried to open a Wells Fargo account, WF insisted that one of our SSNs was wrong. That they already had a customer with that SSN. They wouldn't open the account until we proved that the SSN was legit.
Ironic, given WF's excessive zeal in opening accounts.
It turned out that for three years, WF had been reporting mortgage payments (deductible) with the wrong SSN.
And it's been downhill for Wells Fargo ever since.

Fido was my best brokerage experience, and I remain with them. Vanguard became really terrible.
Also, I would not leave a dime in any Wells Fargo accounts. That bank has a poor history, and I'm not convinced that the culture there has changed. If a bank is opening accounts that customers didn't approve, you don't deal with that bank.

Never had that experience with Wells Fargo. At one time they sold us on an account to segregate funds from fraud online. Said account came with no charges on trades on mutual funds through their brokerage. At some point we said "What's this account all about?" And then we got rid of it. I still got the breaks for a few years after that. But I wish we had kept that account
We did have two positive mortgage experiences with them. One was a refinance of Fort Knox on the Marin-Sonoma border. The other was our house in Arizona that we decided to pay off.
These days, the ETF trades are free, and they charge less for non-NTF funds than Fido. But they don't have near the selection universe.
The funny thing--to us--is that when we attended college in Minnesota. we both had bank accounts at the bank that bought Wells Fargo
When we got to San Francisco in October 1979, our first bank account was with Crocker. They were bought by somebody, who was eventually bought by Wells Fargo. Old Joe might remember.

@MSF The nature of omnibus accounts at outside brokers provides limited information to fund managers, so they don't know generally who owns the funds individually, although I think there are circumstances when there is suspicious trading activity, like the market timing scandal many years ago when they can request more info

Even with no change in market rates, bond prices change. This is most obvious with zero coupon bonds. They are sold at a discount and one gets yield from price appreciation.
As bonds get closer to maturity, their prices gradually converge to par. If the coupon is below current market rate based a bond's remaining maturity, a bond will be priced below par. If the coupon is above current market rate a bond will be priced above par. This is true regardless of when a bond was sold or why it was sold with a particular coupon rate.
The 0.625% bond is a discount bond. That coupon is so low, it's almost like a zero, that trades below par for its entire lifetime. You need to know Wellesley's acquisition price before you can say whether the fund has a mark-to-market loss or gain. All one can tell from the current price and coupon is the YTM.
The march toward par is not linear. A disproportionate amount of price gain of a discount bond comes early. If a 10 year bond is sold at a discount, then five years later the bond price will have gone up more than half (assuming no change in market rates). That's because it is now a 5 year bond and 5 year bonds yield less than 10 year bonds (usually).
So one can pick up some yield by continually selling bonds and buying longer term bonds rather than holding bonds to maturity. This strategy is often called "rolling down the yield curve".
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/fixed-income/rolling-down-the-yield-curve/
The 0.625% bond

Both Schwab and Fidelity have local offices close to me, which is a big draw for me. I know others have said the local office isn't important to them because computer and phone service is adequate, but I will always prefer the 1:1 sit down with a real person or a phone chat with a person I know. I'm not presently a Fidelity customer so I can't compare the two.
To bee's point, I have had a TD Ameritrade Roth IRA account for close to 20 years. I, contrary to bee, am looking forward to the TDA conversion to Schwab. I find the CS trading tools and web site as a whole more to my liking. I guess I've never felt like a product "of" CS. Contrarily, with the switch there are many more financial products open to me.
Prior to the switch, I was tempted to transfer that TDA account to Fidelity just to have a comparative experience between CS and Fidelity. I still might. Just been lazy.

Those are older Treasuries nearing maturities. Coupon shown is that at the time of issue.
For example, 10-yr T-Note issued almost 10 years ago would be nearing maturity now, but will show coupon from 10 years ago. Current price would reflect a change in rates.

@hank
Over the last few years I have been bought by Schwab twice… and counting. I was sold by USAA to Schwab 3 years ago. Instead, I moved to TD. Recently sold again.
In a world where big (Schwab) eat little (USAA), I should appreciate the added value these efficiencies create. I was as unhappy with USAA, maybe more so. At USAA, the $1.6B (corrected) (what Schwab paid) went to improve shareholder experience at USAA. Hmm, I have heard that one before.
Now, this time, big (Schwab) eats big (TD). Not sure who benefited from these sale proceeds, but it wasn’t me. I was the product.
Being a Fidelity customer may have its own drawbacks, but it appears I am a bigger risk to them… being sold.

Been a Schwab customer for about 30 years. I stay for the service. Whenever I have a question or concern I can always reach someone who actually seems to care about my problem. Today I got a follow up call from yesterday’s question about POA on our multi accounts. The rep didn’t have an answer but his manager will be taking the question to customer concerns meeting next week. At least they are trying.

I would have kept our TRP account except they wouldn’t let me invest in PRWCX even though I had been a customer more than 30 years, so I moved those accounts to Fidelity and haven’t looked back.

+1
That firm (TRP) is almost unrecognizable from what it was in the 90s. And not all for the better.

When I first started investing 30+ years ago, I was considering Vanguard, Fidelity and TRowe Price. Vanguard’s minimum investments were too high, and I opted for TRP because they were friendly to small investors. I later started an account with Fidelity for a rollover IRA because they had so many investment options, and never regretted that decision. A few years ago, I moved all of our investments to Fidelity because their customer service is so good, expenses are reasonable, and they have much more options than TRP. I would have kept our TRP account except they wouldn’t let me invest in PRWCX even though I had been a customer more than 30 years, so I moved those accounts to Fidelity and haven’t looked back.