TIAA links don't work. They have .pdf endings when it should be .PDF endings. Usually, URLs are not case sensitive, so unclear why it matters. Edit/Add: Found the answer. Stuff AFTER the domain name is case sensitive, but the stuff BEFORE is not.
NONWORKING Link
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/2021_estimated_annual_taxable_distribution-institutional_share_class.pdf
WORKING Link
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/2021_estimated_annual_taxable_distribution-institutional_share_class.PDF
BTW, I wanted to check unusually large CG distribution for LC-growth index TILIX of 7.38% and it is true. It probably had some large outflows.

My wife and I own....a lot, for a long time. Over 10+years it compares very favorably to the VG large growth ETF (VOOG)but in the last 4yrs it HAS gotten slammed. At the same time is BEAT a mid-cap growth ETFs since LARGE has beaten the snot out of everything else. The COVID Bear seems to have been a turning point, getting left in the dust since late winter/Early spring 2020. MFO Premium has VOOG as a lower risk 4/5 compared to VG Capital Opp. Both are 5/5 overall. VOOG is 38% Tech,11% Healthcare so...no way Cap Opps can compete with that.

WSJ Report by Robert McMillan
"Cybersecurity officials at major tech companies are scrambling to patch a serious flaw in a widely used piece of internet software that security experts warn could unleash a new round of cyberattacks.
The bug, hidden in an obscure piece of server software called Log4j, has prompted investigations into the depth of the problem within Amazon.com Inc., AMZN -1.12% Twitter Inc. TWTR -1.94% and Cisco Systems Inc., CSCO 2.95% according to the companies.
Amazon, the world’s biggest cloud computing company, said in a security alert, “We are actively monitoring this issue, and are working on addressing it.”
The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency on Friday issued an alert about the vulnerability and urged companies to take action. CISA Director Jen Easterly on Saturday added, “To be clear, this vulnerability poses a severe risk. We will only minimize potential impacts through collaborative efforts between government and the private sector.”"
ARTICLE

+1

Thanks, Yogi. I wasn't sure if that was still the case these days. So, if retirement funds are covered (401Ks/IRAs), that just leaves Taxable funds (savings or brokerage accounts), assuming I were to setup a Land Trust.
For RE, I would not receive much coverage from the low Homestead Act exemption in my State.
Unless there are better ideas?
If I went to 5 different lawyers with this, I wonder if I would get 5 different answers.

Disregarding state law protections, IRAs of every ilk including conduit IRAs have less protection than employer plans.
Employer plans are usually covered under an anti-alienation rule that prohibits them from turning moneys over to creditors or pretty much anyone else other than the owner. Period.
https://www.erieri.com/glossary/term/alienation-of-benefits
ERISA: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1056#d_1
Qualified (401(a)) plans: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401#a_13
In contrast, the unlimited protection for employer plan assets rolled over into IRAs comes from the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). This only protects debtors during bankruptcy. (The name of the statute is the giveaway.)
A debtor's choice appears to be to declare personal bankruptcy or rely on state statutes to protect IRA assets from creditors.
The unlimited BAPCPA protection applies to assets coming from employer retirement plans. So long as a debtor can show that IRA assets originated in an employer plan, those identified assets have unlimited protection. Certainly segregating them into a separate rollover IRA makes this source identification ("tracing") task easier. But it is not necessary, and commingling is not a mistake. Keeping inadequate records is.
Having an IRA labeled "rollover" doesn't prove that all the assets in it came from rollovers. I've owned "rollover" IRAs with commingled assets. I also have impeccable records :-)

To make sure that an individual receives the full $1 million exemption [currently adjusted to $1,362,800] on owner-established traditional and Roth IRAs and the unlimited exemption on IRA rollovers from tax-qualified retirement plans, it is good practice to establish separate IRA rollover and contributory IRA accounts. This will make it easier to track the separate pools of assets.

https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2014/jan/naegele-jan2014.html

I've owned JHEQX since March 2021. Happy with it.

Be aware that workplace plans including 401k/403b have the highest protections. The same is true for rollover T-IRAs with only 401k/403b funds (i.e. without any personal contributions). This protection is available without doing anything.
But a common mistake people make is rollover into a tainted/mixed T-IRA with both rollover funds and personal contributions, or consolidate all T-IRAs into one T-IRA in the name of simplification or for saving annual account fees (if any).

I thought that TRP and Vanguard were finally done with this simple(?) transfer. Surprise! Yesterday Vanguard submitted a couple more transactions without notifying me. On the bright side, what Vanguard did was finally clean up things correctly.
When an institution (or in this case, two) mess up a transaction, they should unwind the transaction and fix things up as though the transaction had been processed correctly. Instead, VG and TRP agreed to "fix" the second sale of a VG fund, the one that shouldn't have happened, by repurchasing shares at market price.
It turned out that the repurchase price was about 1/5% higher than the price of the erroneous sale. So the repurchase left me a few shares short of where I would have been had the second sale never have taken place.
VG just reversed that sale, and also reversed the repurchase transaction that shouldn't have been used as a fix. So now it really is as if the second sale had never happened.
I'm okay with the "once in a millennium" error if it's handled correctly, promptly, and I'm kept in the loop. As hank said, it's not the frequency that's the problem, it's the severity, and IMHO more importantly it's how it is handled that matters.
I won't abandon VG or TRP because of this, because they each have offerings that I want. I trade infrequently and try to keep things simple with them. I thought that moving cash might be less error prone than transferring shares.
In hindsight, BaluBalu's suggestion of moving holdings in-kind looks like it might have helped avoid part of this mess. At least then the transactions that could get messed up would have been only on the TRP side.
Side note related to Observant1's comments on AWS: Morningstar was also affected at the same time. They had a banner saying that some of their services were impaired because of AWS problems, and I wasn't able to pull up any fund pages.

Was wondering if anybody recommends use of Trusts for Asset protection (from creditors/lawsuits, etc)?
Family Partnerships or LLCs seems like a possibility.
Irrevocable trusts mean you have to yield control, which is a no-no for me.
Not comfortable with an overseas setup for protection.
Equity stripping (placing “friendly” liens on your assets in favor of an entity you own or control) is another tactic that sounds a bit iffy.
A Land Trust may be of interest since we do own our home.
Anybody have experience setting up decent protection? I realize the best plan would likely vary from state to state based on local laws. I am not worried about succession issues, just security in the event I get rushed to the hospital and have to stay there, and then they slam me with a $1.5M charge. Or maybe to defend from a lawsuit if I were to get in a bad car accident.
I am not really a "High Net Worth" individual, but i would like some sort of safety blanket.

Followers of Dave Ramsey would be disappointed with 5%. He tells listeners to "invest in good growth stock mutual funds" returning 12% a year. But you can't pick these funds yourself, because he thinks listeners should use ELP's to manage their money(Endorsed Local Providers)! I could go on, but I've discussed this Theocratic Financial Advisor Asshat too long already !

Okay I'll pick up the flag …

+1

Howdy folks,
@Derf is right about proper posting. I am guilty as charged. As for 15 years? Hell, I don't know. I've been posting here as long as this board has existed because it sort of evolved out of at least two previous boards devoted to mutual fund investing [the debt we all owe to Roy and Salil is enormous]. Salil and his predecessor evolved out of the UseNetNews group - Mutualfundinvesting. Oh, and for the history buffs, the newsgroup was unmoderated and could get very nasty with trolls and flame wars. That was before the world wide web (WWW) was invented and the internet was pretty wild west.
and all y'all have some great holidays and wear the damn mask,
rono

@hank : Okay I'll pick up the flag. 15 years ? My how time flys !

I'll play the Grinch ! Why wasn't this posted in OT?

I vote … Coal for @Derf / Gold for @rono
Similar to a blocking foul being called in BB, if the defender was already in position when the ball carrier arrived at that spot, there’s no foul. Rono’s been posting this Merry XMas video for the enjoyment of MFO readers (and earlier FA readers) in the investing section for at least 15 years. He already had position.
So, in this case … No foul
(PS - Just a reminder everyone that the December Commentary is posted at the top of the board.)

VHCOX is a Primecap SubAdvised fund and I have been a fan of the Primecap funds for a long time. It was a top performing Mid/Large Cap offering 2012-16 but the last 4 years have not been kind. Slumps and out of style for the current cycle are nothing new and all investments go through this naturally. What's making me question the product is the Style Drift over the past 5-7 years and has that helped/hurt the product. It was a Growth fund, focused on mid caps, and naturally evolved into a large cap fund. Now, it's a large blend as per M*. Primecap has Aggressive Growth and Core offrings but as far as I know, this was a ' clone' (not the correct terminology) of the Aggressive product.
Also, they are heavily allocated to Tech and Health so you would think they'd at least catch some of that momentum. I think their tech exposre was higher than the current 28%...Anyone else own this fund and have similar questions?

BaluBalu
Being curious was the main adventure of my post. Having observed "alternative" funds over the years has not caused me to need/want to travel that path, as our mix has provided. The chart allows for an observation for whomever to reflect for their own needs as to portfolio construction.
You stated:

Your comments: "My expectation for MFO members is that alternative funds are not necessarily a bright spot for money over the years."
If you meant the above for the future, please share your thoughts on why.
"AND if one doesn't hold at least 10% of a portfolio in an alternative fund, any gain or loss is noise; and of little benefit to the portfolio."
I am deducing from your statement that you do not expect JHQAX's historic 10% per year (not compounded) return (somewhat lower return, pre-Covid) to continue. But do you expect it to perform worse than a good HY fund, say, ARTFX? I am not one to quibble about predictions about the future but it would be helpful to know your thoughts.

I, as with you, are not able to offer any forward/future prediction about how any fund will perform in a given market; from effects of the market and/or management skills and decisions. So, I don't have a clue as to JHQAX and its future ability to sail a smooth path for the next 1, 3 or 5 years; and be able to provide a positive ballast for a portfolio. Many here have discovered, over the years; that there are times when the big money houses and the economic educated and enlightened one's have been off course with their observations into the near term and future.
A tangent:
As with my prior chart, I was curious about matching other investments with JHQAX to discover return relationships. The below numbers are real world from a 529 educational account started 15 years ago, and for the heck of it; compared to JHQAX. The two initial holdings in the 529 have not been changed, being 50/50. The two funds are: VITPX and VBMPX. NOTE: A mandatory requirement of this 529 is that the 50/50 (equity/bond) balance is reset every September. So, neither holding has outrun the other, percentage wise; over the years.
The return numbers are annualized where appropriate, with the 529 numbers being a combination of the two holdings returns.

YTD 1YR 3YR 5YR 10YR 15 YR
529 +10.9 +12.8 +14.3 +10.7 +9.7 +7.4
JHQAX +12.9 +13.8 +13.3 +10.2 (partial year)

The above is not an attempt to provide anything more meaningful than a simple portfolio may provide, regardless of ones choices over the long term. A two fund portfolio being QQQ and AGG would provide, IMHO.
We've (household) attempted, over many years; to maintain a low number of investment vehicles. As with every investor, we all have our choices; based upon whatever moves us in a particular direction to hopefully provide the most benefit to a portfolio. We are fortuitous that our career paths were directed towards technology and healthcare; which helped us focus our investments based upon our understanding and insight of these areas.
Our equity holdings today are directed towards technology and healthcare.
Bonds? Don't have a clue at this moment, as the large support of high rates is now missing, which is where the "running" room used to be to have advantage of falling rates and obtain the profits from pricing; versus the prior 40 years.
I wandered a bit........, eh?
Remain curious,
Catch

@carew388: I referred to the link in @yogibearbull’s post in which DoubleLine provides a prospectus for a CEF using the Schiller Cape strategy.
Kudos to @wxman123 for hanging tough with the strategy. I chickened out.