If, in fact, the proposed legislation aims to levy CG taxes on the big traders and big financial firms that benefit from the tax loophole, I might favor it. OTOH, if the individual shareholder, “the little guy,” were to bear the burden of yearly CG taxes on fund distributions, I’d tend to think it was just another effort to shelter the truly wealthy to the disadvantage of the middle class. The recent changes in IRA distribution rules do not really affect the wealthy, who don’t rely on IRA investments to save for retirement. The rules do, however, shift a tax burden to the heirs of taxpayers who, in all likelihood, are of relatively modest means. The wealthy can pass on vast sums practically tax-free to their heirs. I’m old enough to remember the new tax rules governing IRAs the Reagan administration promulgated. Individual shareholders had to cough up big bucks for tax year, 1986, IIRC. Relative to my wealth, my two cents represent a lot, in case you were wondering…

msf -
The question was asked and answered about Vanguard's and S&P's disclosures in the context of a switch in index providers for its VDADX/VIG vehicles.
Your posts - bringing Fidelity, iShares, and Franklin into the mix, and bringing up, as you say, "average market caps" or mean market caps, rather than the median (which was under discussion) seem to me to be the financial equivalent of "what-aboutism".
WIKI
Wiki link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER
M-W link here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning
Whataboutism ... is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.
For the life of me, I can't understand why you are responding so vociferously to my original statements or conclusions.
1. There is a standard, well accepted definition of median.
2. Standard (no pun) & Poor's uses this definition in their description of their indices, including the new one that will be adopted by VDADX/VIG.
3. Vanguard does not use this definition.
4. Vanguard uses its own definition of median that is not clearly labelled (as noted by BaluBalu, it should be labelled "Weighted Median"), and Vanguard's (mal)practice can confuse Vanguard investors (such as BaluBalu).
IMHO, if you want to have a discussion about average (rather than median) market cap conventions used by various other market participants - go for it. Perhaps you could start a new thread for that topic.
PS: While I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of Vanguard's poor website design (good Lord, we have enough of those!) consider the following.
Below is the link to the search results I obtained for 'median', when using the Vanguard website search box. None of them refer to the 'retirement plan' definition that you provided.
(Wonder what the definition for median is when you are not in a retirement plan?)
https://investor.vanguard.com/search/?origin=fasHome&legalStuff=otherStuff&query=median#query=median|filter=dataIDall

If anybody feels knowledgeable enough, I’d appreciate your explanation / opinions on the “liquidity” issue Randall Forsyth mentions briefly in the Sept. 13 Barron’s. The debt part I understand. But the liquidity part is what I’m not fully reeling in.
Here’s Forsyth’s final paragraph:
“As a result of the past 20 years’ policies, America's public debt is one-quarter larger than the economy, versus a little more than half of gross domestic product in the third quarter of 2001. At the same time, the Fed's assets—mainly U.S. Treasury securities—have grown more than 11-fold, to over $8.3 trillion. As a result, the financial system has become so overstuffed with liquidity that more than $1.1 trillion is parked at the Fed's overnight reverse-repurchase facility. Who could have foreseen this two decades ago?”
-
As investors, we like to have liquidity. It allows us to move from one position to another easily or take advantage of opportunities that arise. No? So why is having too much of it dangerous to the economy?

Here is the PRWCX portfolio as of 8/31/2021 from the TRP website.
Portfolio
$52.23 billion
Total Net Assets as of 8/31/2021
Asset
Allocation
Domestic Stock
68.90%
Other
28.00%
Domestic Bond
1.40%
Foreign Stock
0.90%
Convertibles
0.80%
Top 10 Holdings 8/31/2021
Microsoft
6.90%
Amazon.com
5.70%
GE
4.43%
Alphabet Class C
3.29%
Danaher
3.24%
Marsh & McLennan
3.16%
PNC Financial Services Group
3.12%
Yum! Brands
3.07%
UnitedHealth Group
3.02%
Thermo Fisher Scientific
2.78%

Baird is not a fund company that comes to mind when looking for equity funds. It is replacing the manager for these two funds with (as noted above) an affiliate of Baird (which owns 75%-100%).
Here's what little I can find on Greenhouse - it's indirectly owned by Baird (via ownership by Joseph M and Kirsten T Milano). It does not manage any OEFs, but manages $628M for eight clients including three hedge funds.
https://wallmine.com/adviser/235960/greenhouse-funds-lllp
About seven years ago, Baird floated the idea of a microcap fund managed by Greenhouse. It would own 50-100 companies, compared with 25-50 here.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/20043/greenhouse-microcap-discovery-fund-bcdsx
What caught my eye in that prospectus is that Joseph Milano had been manager of T. Rowe Price New America Growth Fund (now All Cap Opportunities Fund) PRWAX for a decade.

“Investors in European junk bonds have begun accepting interest payments that are lower than eurozone inflation levels for the first time ever, in the latest sign that central banks’ crisis-era debt purchases have shifted the balance between risk and reward. The yield on ICE BofA index of European high-yield bonds was pushed down to 2.34 per cent this week, marking the first time buyers of so-called high-yield European currency bonds have accepted payments below consumer price inflation in the eurozone …
Analysts said investors’ willingness to extend credit to the riskiest borrowers while losing money in real terms reflected the scarcity of other opportunities to earn returns in debt markets. At the same time, Europe’s strong recovery from the pandemic following a bumper earnings season has reduced the risk that junk bond issuers will default.”
(If your bond or multi-asset fund holds global debt you may own some of these.)
The Financial Times

The 1980's saw inflation without much growth. Another scenario is Japan with high debt and low inflation.
I bought the Fidelity Real Return Fund (FSRRX) last year anticipating inflation. It's performance has not been great, but it has done well the past year. I bought it because it has had lower drawdowns than commodity funds.
https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/FSRRX/overview
"The fund invests directly, in other funds, and through derivatives such as commodity futures and swaps. For its fixed income portion, it invests in inflation-protected debt securities and floating rate loans. For its equity portion, the fund invests in stocks of real estate investment trusts. For its commodity portion, it invests in commodity-linked notes. The fund also invests in Fidelity's central funds. It employs fundamental analysis along with a bottom up stock picking approach by focusing on factors such as security's structural features and current pricing, its issuer's potential for success, and the credit, currency, and economic risks of the security and its issuer, financial condition, earnings outlook, strategy, management, industry position, and economic and market conditions to create its portfolio. "

“Top executives of Renaissance Technologies and their spouses have agreed to pay about $7 billion (€5.9 billion) in back taxes and penalties to federal authorities in connection with trades made by the quantitative hedge fund in the largest tax settlement in US history, according to people briefed on the matter. Jim Simons, a mathematician and former cold war codebreaker who founded the fund about four decades ago, will pay an additional $670 million, according to a letter the group sent to investors, which has been seen by the Financial Times.
Dispute
The settlement put an end to a long-running dispute linked to trades made by the firm’s Medallion fund between 2005 and 2015, when several of its executives converted short-term capital gains into long-term profits, which are taxed at a significantly lower rate. Renaissance has also counted among its top executives Robert Mercer, who financed the far-right news website Breitbart and backed several Republican political candidates including former US president Donald Trump.”
(Originally Published in the Financial Times) https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/executives-at-hedge-fund-renaissance-to-pay-7bn-in-back-taxes-1.4664159

“Record levels of stock buying by retail investors have helped to keep US equities marching higher through the summer months, and been the “dominant force” powering a relentless rally in the market, according to analysts at JPMorgan. US retail investors’ net purchases of stocks and exchange traded funds surged to record levels during the summer, after posting substantial inflows throughout the year, according to a measure calculated by the bank to focus on retail activity.
The S&P 500 index of blue-chip US stocks is up 20 per cent so far this year. Global equity fund inflows, which analysts view as another indicator of retail buying, have pushed past $689bn so far this year, smashing the previous annual record set in 2017”
Excerpted & edited for brevity from Financial Times September 6, 2021
https://www.ft.com/content/d87c6631-55f0-4897-9634-bf0ad969e27d

msf - Thanks for comments. Believe you are, in effect, making or confirming my point.
Don't expect that new-to-Vanguard investors that did any sort of due diligence prior to investing with Vanguard will be surprised with Vanguard's current customer 'service' levels.
It is what it is.
Think the issue is more relevant to older investors (like myself), who first invested with Vanguard during era when Mr Bogle was either running the place, and/or alive. We actually remember when there was a there, there.
But that was then, and it is now. Think we have to get over it, and move along. Nothing to see here .... etc.
For example, FWIW, a family member had to do a 401-k rollover, and asked for my advice regarding where the money should go, i.e., which custodian?
I asked them if being able to talk with a person about their investments was important, and how long they wanted to wait for this 'privilege'. Based on answers (Yes and 15 minutes or less), I recommended Fidelity or Schwab. They went with Fidelity.
I faced a similar decision myself several months ago, with respect to an in-service 401-k to IRA rollover. I chose Fidelity, and invested the check that I received in several very low cost ETFs. As it happens, none of them were Vanguard (or Fidelity) ETFs, but they might have been.
Think that Vanguard, by way of John Bogle, created a a revolutionary idea or maybe a public good - like the town common. This was the expectation that investing for the little guy can be incredibly inexpensive and efficient.
While Vanguard is not itself a public company (i.e., for-profit entity with stock that is traded on an exchange and which is owned by stockholders, with officers and board that are accountable to the stockholders), Bogle's revolutionary ideas were copied (and improved?) by other public companies and delivered very efficiently via ETFs and brokerage accounts to the public. (Wonders of capitalism and competition.)
Note: In an effort to compete - and drive their own costs even lower - Vanguard was forced to eliminate new "mutual fund accounts", as opposed to "brokerage fund accounts" for their clients. (There are some exceptions. Understand, for example, that employees of financial firms with restrictions on holding brokerage accounts outside of their employer - for compliance reasons - can open a "mutual fund account" at Vanguard.)
In any event, there is not much reason (really) to invest with Vanguard anymore. Not sure that there is anything that Vanguard can do that Vanguard competitors can not do. (Exception might be very low cost money market funds to act as the "clearing" investment in a brokerage account. But that's about it.)
As long as Vanguard exists in its current form, it is sort of like the Frontier Airlines effect often noted in various cities around the the country. As soon as Frontier makes a city a hub or mini-hub, competitors' ticket prices go down at that location. Once Frontier is operating in your city, you don't need to fly Frontier to get the benefit of lower ticket prices.
Same thing with Vanguard. As long as it is around, it will keep competitors' prices in check. But you don't need to own Vanguard mutual funds or ETFs to get the benefits of its unique low-cost structure. You can (and should?) get them almost anywhere.
PS: Two years ago, Jonathan Clements commented on Vanguard's customer service issues at his "Humble Dollar" website. Titled "Whither Vanguard", it is available here. "Whither Vanguard" was originally posted on this board by the late Ted Didesch. Ted's post is here: https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/51709/jonathan-clements-whither-vanguard

There are reports of long telephone wait times and incompetent agents at Vanguard.
Although I haven't needed to contact Vanguard often for assistance, they were helpful when I transferred my Roth IRA in 2019 and the transaction went smoothly. I like their secure messaging option for non-urgent issues which are not time-sensitive and have used it several times. Unfortunately, secure messaging will be phased out for those who are not Flagship clients or don't have accessibility needs.
“'I’m a huge fan of Vanguard,' added financial planner Allan S. Roth, based in Colorado.
However, in March, he wrote a column about how he experienced Vanguard returning hundred-thousand-dollar-plus checks, making mistakes in trust accounts, and messing up the distribution in his mother’s inherited IRA account."
Dan Wiener:
“The issue is when I have something that needs to be done, I can’t get it done at Vanguard, whether settling an estate, moving assets, making a gift.
It’s fine until it’s not.”
Link

Rather than lighten up on an already slim equity exposure, I bought a little DOG today. It’s 1% of total holdings and I do not intend to add to it. Not sure if this is going to work. But I think we’re over-due for a correction. Certainly don’t view it as a long term hold.
The SEC under Gensler is seeking public comment on the “gamification” of investing - ie: the online brokerages that promote frequent trading and the self-made investment online “gurus” who pocket millions a year advising the obedient herd who follow their recommendations - sometimes en masse. There are any number of articles in the financial press re Gensler’s mission. Kindly share your letters to Mr. Gensler with this board before sending them off. :)

Another filing as of 8/24/21:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494928/000139834421016711/fp0068207_497.htm
497 1 fp0068207_497.htm
RiverPark Funds Trust
RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund
Institutional Class (RPHIX)
Retail Class (RPHYX)
Supplement dated August 24, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated January 28, 2021.
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI.
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Further to the Supplement dated May 20, 2021, effective as of 4 p.m. on August 27, 2021 (the "Revised Closing Date"), the definition of existing shareholders who may purchase Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund (the "Fund") is modified as follows:
Existing shareholders will only include shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Revised Closing Date (although if a shareholder closes all accounts in the Fund, additional investments into the Fund may not be accepted).
After the Revised Closing Date, the following eligible investors may also open new accounts:
·New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e. not through a financial intermediary).
·Any trustee of RiverPark Funds Trust, or employee of RiverPark Advisors, LLC or Cohanzick Management, LLC, or an investor who is an immediate family member of any of these individuals.
The Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to determine the criteria for qualification as an eligible investor and to reject or accept any purchase order. Sales of Retail Class Shares and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund may be further restricted or reopened in the future.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Every PM who acheives short-term rock star status and becomes a media darling whose every utterance & move is covered on page one of the financial infotainment world is due to crash sooner or later. Bill Gross, Rob Arnott, Michael Hassenstaab, etc. Cathie will be no different.

Hmm. I'll say this. @ProtonAnalyst33 mentioned the thought process of folks being more comfortable investing in a geographical area where they have actually been, ok, I respect the thought process and commentary.
However, how about talking to folks who have done business at a high level in said geographical areas and understand customs, behavioral norms, etc. Setting aside all political correctness, judge a person/area by their character and how they conduct themselves and call it like it is.
Shady negotiation practices, shell companies, fraudulent financial claims, "slippery" dealings, patent infringement, going around others and trying to cut others out of a deal, wanting blue prints, taking design and selling it to others...uh, huh. I have experienced those first hand, regardless of whether I have been there or not. Worked with many collegues, saying whoa, that wasn't the factory they showed us in the photos....Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
Don't buy into the con. Keep your money at home.
But agan, totally agree with Mr. Rono. paraphrasing, do what you are comfortable with, invest where you want, it's your money. Being candid, I don't know any of you, wish you all the best but if you make a fortune or lose it, it's on you...just some strangers typing away on the keyboard...
Good Luck to All,
Baseball Fan

More than a decade on from the financial crisis, regulators are spooked once again that some companies at the heart of the financial system are too big to fail. But they're not banks.
This time it's the tech giants including Google (GOOGL.O), Amazon (AMZN.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) that host a growing mass of bank, insurance and market operations on their vast cloud internet platforms that are keeping watchdogs awake at night.

bank-regulators-tech-giants-are-now-too-big-fail

Here's SSAs summary of ways to make social security solvent. 22 out of the 33 pages are tables with bullet items and brief descriptions of different changes that could be made.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/summary.pdf
For the gory detail, see https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/index.html
One of the changes caught my eye because by itself it would reduce the long range actuarial balance shortfall by 86%. (For limitations in using the actuarial balance as a single magic number, see here, under A Range of Financial Measures.)
People are likely familiar with the fact that one's primary insurance amount (PIA), i.e. what one receives at full retirement age (FRA), is calculated based on one's 35 highest years of earnings. But earnings 35 years ago have to be adjusted; $1K in wages in 1986 was worth a whole lot more than $1K in wages today.
Have you ever thought about how that adjustment is made? I suspect that most people who have given it any thought believe that one's earnings are adjusted for inflation, just as SS payments have a COLA adjustment.
The proposed change, item B1.1 in the summary, is to calculate PIA precisely this way. This change would take care of most of the shortfall because in reality the current system is much more generous than merely adjusting past wages for inflation.

When we compute an insured worker's benefit, we first adjust or "index" his or her earnings to reflect the change in general wage levels that occurred during the worker's years of employment. Such indexation ensures that a worker's future benefits reflect the general rise in the standard of living that occurred during his or her working lifetime.

Emphasis added.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/Benefits.html
While there are reasons I don't like this particular change, it would nevertheless be nearly invisible (as described) and come close to making SS solvent over the next 75 years (the planning horizon).

IMHO the headline is clickbait.
The column that is the source of these findings includes the paragraph:

And not just impulsive, but sometimes inebriated: 32% of investors admit they’ve traded stocks while drunk. ... younger investors admit to falling into this trap much more frequently than older traders, with 59% of Gen Zers admitting to drinking and trading, versus just 9% of baby boomers.

I lean more toward teetotaling myself, but I thought there was a distinction between taking a sip of an apéritif to whet one's appetite for a share of BRK.B and getting sloshed before sinking one's life savings into bitcoin. Drinking and getting drunk are not the same.
I find the results (what little is presented) suspect. Generally, a question along the lines of "have you ever ..." should have more positive responses from older people than younger ones, because the older one is the more opportunity one has had to do whatever. Even trading with an app (which goes all the way back to Schwab's Equalizer on DOS). Even trading over a nice chardonnay. Yet on every question, the percentage of respondents who have ever done x declines with age.
The MagnifyMoney column reads like a commercial for its financial adviser referral program. It's got this big bar chart showing how people who invest with advisors are less likely to feel regret, make emotional investments, lose sleep over the market. And it concludes: "Sometimes the smartest move to take control of your finances is to let an experienced professional guide you."

50 years ago, on August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon shocked the financial world by ending the convertibility of the dollar to gold, upending the monetary and currency exchange system that had been in place since 1944. This week Nick Sargen, author of Global Shocks, joins us for a WEALTHTRACK podcast to explain the consequences of that momentous decision which are still being felt today.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/912036/000119312521245986/d214700d497k.htm
497K 1 d214700d497k.htm AMG FUNDS IV
Filed pursuant to 497(k)
File Nos. 033-68666 and 811-08004
AMG FUNDS IV
AMG River Road Long-Short Fund
Supplement dated August 13, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, dated February 1, 2021
The following information supplements and supersedes any information to the contrary relating to AMG River Road Long-Short Fund (the “Fund”), a series of AMG Funds IV (the “Trust”), contained in the Fund’s Summary Prospectus (the “Summary Prospectus”), dated as noted above.
At a special meeting held on August 12, 2021, shareholders of the Fund approved: (i) a change to the Fund’s fundamental investment objective; (ii) the redesignation of the Fund’s fundamental investment objective as non-fundamental; (iii) the amendment of the Fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to borrowing; and (iv) a modified “manager-of-managers” structure for the Fund.
Effective as of August 16, 2021 (the “Implementation Date”): (i) the Fund will change its name from AMG River Road Long-Short Fund to AMG River Road International Value Equity Fund; (ii) the Fund will change its principal investment strategies, resulting in changes to its principal risks; and (iii) the Fund will replace its primary benchmark index with the MSCI EAFE Index and replace its secondary benchmark index with the MSCI EAFE Value Index.
Also effective as of the Implementation Date, the following fee changes for the Fund will take effect and will result in the overall reduction of the Fund’s net expenses ratios as compared with the Fund’s current fee structure: (i) the management fee for the Fund will be reduced from 0.85% to 0.53%; (ii) the Fund’s existing contractual expense limitation agreement with AMG Funds LLC (“AMGF”) will be replaced with a new contractual expense limitation agreement with AMGF pursuant to which AMGF will agree, through at least March 1, 2023, to limit total annual operating expenses (exclusive of taxes, interest (including interest incurred in connection with bank and custody overdrafts and in connection with securities sold short), shareholder servicing fees, distribution and service (12b-1) fees, brokerage commissions and other transaction costs, dividends payable with respect to securities sold short, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) of the Fund to the annual rate of 0.73% of the Fund’s average daily net assets, subject to later reimbursement by the Fund in certain circumstances; and (iii) the shareholder servicing fee waivers in place for Class N and Class I shares will be eliminated and the amount of shareholder servicing fees each of Class I and Class N shares of the Fund are authorized to pay to financial intermediaries will be decreased from 0.15% to 0.05%. AMGF pays a portion of the management fee to the Fund’s subadviser for its services.
The disposition of Fund securities in connection with the transition of the Fund’s investment objective and strategies is expected to cause the Fund to realize taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Fund intends to make a special distribution to shareholders of all or a portion of such income and any other undistributed income for the current taxable year. This distribution will be taxable to shareholders who hold their shares in a taxable account. See “Certain Federal Income Tax Information” in the Fund’s Prospectus for further information...