Its heyday may be over? Last 5 years 2019-2023 or YTD it hasn't even kept up with the SP500 (VOO) Why pay ER .31 (VPMAX adm) vs ER .03 (VOO). On 200k that's $620 vs $60.

Eight or nine years of redemptions probably explains it.
BTW, those consistent redemptions have resulted in years and years of significant capital gains distributions. On an after-tax basis both of these funds have underperformed the S&P 500, by more than 100 bps a year for over a decade.

I have been in the closed VG VHCAX for years and been watching VG PRIMECAP also for years. I now have minimum+ in these reopened funds. As to why, I will worry about that later.

@Tarwheel
Hard to generalize about state pensions. My sister in Texas is in similar shape as you.
But if you had worked in CT you would get traditional 60 to 70% of “high three average” ( go overtime go) with inflation adjustments AND lifetime health insurance for you and ur spouse.
Vests ( including health insurance) After ten years of employment. So work ten years ie 22 to 32 yo and enjoy health insurance till 100!

Suppose you have 1 million in Fidelity SP500 (FXAIX) and you want $4K monthly. You can create a sell monthly trade on a specific date to run for years to do it...and you are done.

Only if you have the stomach for it. If you had $1M on Jan 1, 2022, and set up that trade you would be down $283,000 come October with zero guarantee that things were about to improve, and most likely torturing yourself thinking about what a terrible mistake you made.

My post wasn't discussing volatility, and no one advised to put it all in one fund.
It was an example of why you should invest based on TR and/or most people use risk-adjusted performance.
But why did you start on 1-1-2022? Why not start in 2008 and show it was down over 50%?
waggon:

How a fund delivers those dividends may have some short-term effect on returns, but there's no denying that dividends play a massive rose in returns. Since 1989, again according to S&P, the index has gained 1,393% without dividends; it's up 2,930% with dividends. With that kind of performance differential, it's hard to argue that dividends don't matter.

Why look at more than 30 years ago? The fact is that Divy have been going down. Since 2009, QQQ made about 1900% with minimal divy. High Divy stocks made a lot less than QQQ. (https://schrts.co/UhfIDyIu)

@stillers. Perhaps another universe is oddly phrased, but my financial life would be entirely different if I had a pension check roll in every month. Many decisions would be looked at differently.

Oh, now I get it!
And agreed, our collective SS and Pension incomes result in negligible, if any in some years, annual income gap. Makes a world of difference in all of our financial and investment decisions. We played it close to the vest in our first five years of retirement, but have swung for the fences in our last seven. To our credit though, we started planning for our retirements and this very situation on Day 1 of our first professional jobs in 1980. Well, I did at least. The missus got on board a wee bit later!

@stillers,
While I am not directly invested in the AI theme, I would appreciate you telling us when you think it may be time to get off the semi-conductor or Nvidia trade train (or when you sell). I know from your posts that you are directly invested in the AI theme and so your judgement is as good as any for me.
(I previously posted: If I do not respond to future posts about Rev Rec, pl do not assume I agree with any commentary in those posts. I have no comment on the Seeking Alpha article.)

Yeah, the proverbial $64K question.
Macro: The history of AI goes back to the 1950's. I posted a link this year detailing the phases. The current AI phase is expected by some of the analysts I follow to have another five years of growth in it. So there's that.
Micro: As I've posted a few previous times...My greatest exposure to AI is via FSELX though I certainly get plenty more via other OEFs. I've owned FSELX since near its inception. I routinely shave its allocation when it exceeds a given % of our Market Portfolio, and usually roll the proceeds to broader tech funds. That time has come again and I will likely be lightening up this week on FSELX to that extent, put may park the proceeds this time in FZDXX (per the following notion). I am also considering lightening up this week on some other OEFs with heavy tech/AI allocations. The FSELX sale is pre-programmed, so to speak, while the latter sales, if they happen, will be more of a gut feeling that I may be getting a wee bit greedy here. I will post any sales in this regard on the B/S/W thread. But no plans to significantly alter my tech/AI allocation...yet.

The only reason that I originally opened a separate account at Vanguard was to have access to Vanguard funds. Switching to Schwab or any new institution doesn't add to the number of places I'm dealing with, so I'm more open to Schwab than I would be if I were simply adding them as another brokerage I'm using.
I've used Schwab off and on for decades. I consider it a solid competitor to Fidelity. A few years ago I moved my Schwab holdings to Fidelity simply to consolidate.
Schwab offers some funds that one can't get at Fidelity (and vice versa). I might not take advantage of this as I recently went through a second major portfolio overhaul to get down to fewer funds. But having easy access to some more potential replacements might help me prune further.
It really does come down to Schwab having made me an offer I couldn't refuse. In the past I've tried to negotiate any giveback from Fidelity with no success. And now, while Fidelity talked about how they have superior service, so much to offer, etc., they didn't put anything on the table. No harm in taking Schwab up on its offer; especially if I limit the holdings to Roths which entail no bookkeeping now or once I reach RMD age since Roths have no RMDs.
I've been using Fidelity's bill pay for years and it has good paying taxable MMFs. Like Schwab, it provides ATM access with rebates worldwide and without foreign transaction fees. I would not use Schwab for cash, ever. (Well, when it originally opened Schwab bank, its high yielding account really was high yielding, but that was eons ago.)

I was surprised to learn recently that regardless of “tread-wear” tires need to be replaced at a time interval set by the manufacturer - usually about 6 years - a year or so longer with some premium brands. The reason is that the sidewalls deteriorate over time and could cause a blowout. This was pointed out to me when I had my old 2005 pickup in for routine servicing a year or two ago. The mechanic pointed to extensive visible cracks in all of the sidewalls. The tire treads were lightly worn. I drive the old truck only about 1,000 miles a year, but often heavily loaded. The tires were probably 10 years old. Of course I replaced all 4.
Edmunds Commentary: How Old / Dangerous Are Your Tires?
Per @msf’s experience with an oil change - I encountered the same resistance a few years ago when I took the old pickup in for an annual oil change at a local “quick lube.” The guy claimed the oil looked “clean” on the dipstick and at first declined to change it. Eventually, I convinced him to do so. For us old-timers that seems indeed odd. We were taught (I believe correctly) that an oil’s “appearance” is not an accurate way to to access its condition or need to be replaced. And it seems especially peculiar a vehicle service center would voluntarily turn down a chance to make a dollar. I’m wondering if perhaps there’s been some pressure applied by the EPA to encourage or coerce oil change outfits to do this visual inspection with the goal of reducing the amount of waste oil, which presents environmental challenges (though I believe it can be recycled).
”Do I receive compensation for observing that the risk is water condensation?:-)”
As the old expression goes, ”a penny for your thoughts …” :)

It is the same with shoes. You should wear them at least once in a while; otherwise, the soles will just crumble. I stopped working soon after I bought a couple of pairs of formal, expensive shoes. When I took them out after a few years, the soles did not hold together.
After 7 years of buying my tires, once a year, I asked the Costco tire center person for his opinion if I need to change the tires. After 10 years of use, the Costco person said I should change because he noticed weak spots developing on the side of the tires.

That’s a nod to the fact that over time compensation (water) can form inside the engine and contaminate the oil.
Do I receive compensation for observing that the risk is water condensation? :-)
The first time I brought our car in for annual servicing, when I picked up my car they told me they didn't change the oil (even though I had requested it) because it was completely clean. They said they would have felt guilty charging me so much for an unneeded synthetic oil change.
The purity of the oil was no surprise - I drive around 1,000 miles/year. But since that first servicing I always tell them that I don't care how clean the oil is, change it.
An even more tangential question - how often do you replace tires? I used to drive 18,000 miles per year, so it was easy - buy tires when the old ones wear out. But now, there's no wear. I've read that the rubber is only supposed to last six years or so. If I replace tires every six years, at 1K miles/year I won't ever have to rotate them!

From Bloomberg this evening:
”How the US Mopped Up a Third of Global Capital Flows Since Covid “
(Excerpt) “In the face of calls around the world to diversify out of the dollar in recent years, the US has nabbed almost one-third of all the investment that flowed across borders since Covid struck. An International Monetary Fund analysis sent by request to Bloomberg News shows that the share of global flows has climbed — not fallen — since a shortage of dollars in 2020 spooked global investors and the 2022 freezing of Russian assets stoked questions about respect for free movement of capital. The pre-pandemic US average share was just 18%, according to the IMF. “
Article by Enda Curran and Saleha Mohsin - Bloomberg Media / June 16, 2024

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry about some investment in your portfolio!
Thanks @Observant1. I’m quite fond of Love Story with Ali MacGraw and Ryan O’Neil having first seen it around ‘71, a few years after graduating from college.
Agree @Old_Joe / I’d say Brexit played a big part. Humans worldwide appear equally adept at shooting themselves in the foot. (or is it feet?) We enjoy no monopoly in that regard.

"Britain’s per-capita GDP is lower than that of any of our 50 states"
@hank - No surprise there- their GDP has been subpar for many years, and Brexit certainly didn't help.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/06/16/fareeds-take-europe-america-pace-gps-digvid.cnn

Insightful, but does the current US/Euro gap indicate future trend or represent a possible turning point? One thing for sure, the US will not stay this far ahead forever. There is good growth in the US, but possibly better value may be found overseas.

Ya, I ventured overseas years ago. The "old saw" was that Europe was "old money." I was looking for a bargain. And I had some EM holdings, too. These days, Europe is even more complicated: Ukraine war, Right-wing election gains. One currency, but many different national budgets.... I did well investing in EM bonds through the GFC and for a while beyond, and then I got out, following some good advice from someone in here.
Politically, China is uninvestable these days. Authoritarian. Curtailed civil and human rights. They're putting the screws to "special territories" Hong Kong and Macau, too. After having visited there in early 2019, it makes me so sad and angry to see it happening. The Markets have no conscience. But this whole business in China is morally distressing. I'm sworn off of foreign investments in my mutual funds; funds are still the lion's share of what I own. My fund managers have me in UK and Europe, just a tiny bit. I own a Canadian stock with a great dividend; is that "foreign?" Also, a Luxembourg-based maker of oil drilling pipes. Two still very tiny single-stock holdings. In retirement, I like YIELD. My (junk) bond funds provide most of that. Keeping a close eye on them--- a "short leash." Currently, my portfolio provides a 4.05% yield, as calculated by the ever-reliable (LOL) Morningstar.

Crash, technology isn't perfect, but the old ways isn't either. Technology has presented us with a lot more choices. Choices = a lot more development and interactions between systems.
I used to pay $1.5 per minute calling abroad, I have used WhatsApp for years paying nothing. Sure, sometimes it's not clear but it's FREE.
Google Maps gives you driving, walking, and public transportation for FREE. Yes, I know Google also gets the info they need to make money, but you have a choice. 40 years ago, you had no choices.
I like choices. Maybe you prefer to drive downtown to city hall, use gas, pay for parking, and pay your bill with cash, and spend 1-2 hours. I prefer paying online in one minute.
Sure, I don't like state/gov bureaucracy, I would fire tomorrow at least 20% of them.
A city near us did just that. They hired private companies to do a lot of stuff and that saved them a lot of money.

Missed my point entirely. You must have tried very hard.

Suppose you have 1 million in Fidelity SP500 (FXAIX) and you want $4K monthly. You can create a sell monthly trade on a specific date to run for years to do it...and you are done.

Only if you have the stomach for it. If you had $1M on Jan 1, 2022, and set up that trade you would be down $283,000 come October with zero guarantee that things were about to improve, and most likely torturing yourself thinking about what a terrible mistake you made.

It's a very old argument that higher distributions are better than lower ones (or none)...and it's a bogus one.
Until the 70s blue chip big companies paid div to prove they are healthier. Then the technology revolution took off and these new companies have been paying nothing to lower distributions which did not hurt their stock TR...but this notion of higher distributions has not gone away and cost these investors a lot of performance and money.
Many retirees fall into it too thinking they must have these higher distributions to survive. No, they don't, the following is an easy example how you can generate monthly distribution.
Suppose you have 1 million in Fidelity SP500 (FXAIX) and you want $4K monthly. You can create a sell monthly trade on a specific date to run for years to do it...and you are done.

Crash, technology isn't perfect, but the old ways isn't either. Technology has presented us with a lot more choices. Choices = a lot more development and interactions between systems.
I used to pay $1.5 per minute calling abroad, I have used WhatsApp for years paying nothing. Sure, sometimes it's not clear but it's FREE.
Google Maps gives you driving, walking, and public transportation for FREE. Yes, I know Google also gets the info they need to make money, but you have a choice. 40 years ago, you had no choices.
I like choices. Maybe you prefer to drive downtown to city hall, use gas, pay for parking, and pay your bill with cash, and spend 1-2 hours. I prefer paying online in one minute.
Sure, I don't like state/gov bureaucracy, I would fire tomorrow at least 20% of them.
A city near us did just that. They hired private companies to do a lot of stuff and that saved them a lot of money.

”I'm not sure what benefit anyone could derive from that …”
Oh, every bit helps. :)
Thanks for commenting. When I switched from investing at just a few fund houses to a full service brokerage 4 or 5 years ago it was as if a dark curtain had been lifted, uncovering not only a more extensive field of traditional OEFs, but also the ability to own individual stocks, ETFs, CEFs - a whole new universe of investments. My initial reaction was to broaden out into ETFs and even buy a few stocks. But now, a few years later, I find myself largely invested in a handful of good timeworn OEFs. I guess I like the manager having some additional latitude and not having to match every buy or sale of his investors tit-for-tat. The OEFs also tend to have a longer more extensive track record to research, having been around longer. And I have a sense that those in OEFs tend to be a slightly more stable bunch, less likely to be spooked (and sell) during market downdrafts - although that will vary by fund. I do understand that OEFs are more expensive, So fees are a good reason to move to ETFs or to own equities outright. One additional thing I’ve learned is that I tend to monkey around less with OEFs. There may be a psychological advantage to once-a-day pricing. But, of course, that depends on one’s own psyche.
So I wanted to double-check my current heavy use of traditional mutual funds (80% of portfolio) against how different members of the community invest. The biggest surprise has been how diverse the approaches are, ranging from some managing extensive portfolios of individual stocks to others zeroing in on just 3-5 broader investments. And, some like @racqueteer, appear to be active traders. Also a surprise is the extent to which some are predominately invested in cash. But it’s hard to quarrel with them taking advantage of 5%+ short term rates. All good. Thanks for sharing.