Looks like MetWest officially extended the fee waiver until July 31, 2021

NY Times article:
"A new study finds that hot mutual funds generally don’t keep outperforming from year to year, overturning an important finding from the 1990s."
Mutual Fund Winners Don't Last

Two thoughts:
1. Another D&C fund -- so soon? Are they under new management, or is this really in the best interest of shareholders?
2. If D&C were to add another fund, I kind of think they should add a Global Balanced Fund (Global Stocks, Global Bonds) before doing an EM fund. But, hey...

“Effective October 1, 2020, the T. Rowe Price U.S. Bond Enhanced Index Fund (PBDIX) will change its name to the T. Rowe Price QM U.S. Bond Index Fund to better reflect how the fund is managed. Additionally, we will change the fund’s fee structure and lower fees, also effective October 1, 2020. We will also launch a new I Class, which will incept on October 5, 2020 and be publicly available on October 7, 2020.”
Price periodically changes a fund’s name to better reflect its style. Couple others come to mind that underwent name changes: TRRIX, TRIGX. Likely many more. Wondering whether any other of their index funds will receive fee reductions?
Above excerpt pulled from email to clients. Here’s a link to their actual public announcement - LINK

Thank you. Back in the 1900 I invested with Hakan Castegren of Harbor International fund until his passing. The rest of the Northern Cross team did not live up to Hakan Castegren and I left several years later. Marathon is fair and nothing outstanding as subadvisor for Harbor International fund.
I am actually more interested in James Anderson of Baillie Gifford who has very good long term track record. They appear to be institutional fund managers. Similar international growth and global Baillie Gifford funds are not available in the retail Fidelity and Schwab brokerages. So I will stay with Vanguard International Growth fund.

Not meant as a recommendation, but if you're interested in a fund with Marathon as the sole advisor, you could look at HAINX and HAIDX. M* says that the difference is that the former is restricted to developed markets. Though the latter holds just 12% in EM.
HAINX uses 8 managers from Marathon, including the two Marathon managers on VHGEX. HAIDX adds a ninth manager to the mix.
Harbor's funds are all submanaged. While Harbor's fees are not as low as Vanguard's (whose are?), they are modest for the institutional share class ($50K min) of their funds.
HAINX was a great fund in the 1990s and 2000s, managed by Hakan Castegren of Northern Cross. The fund added four Northern Cross managers in 2009. Unfortunately the remaining team did not do well with the fund, and in mid-2018 Harbor switched the fund's advisor from Northern Cross to Marathon. (Shortly after it lost the Harbor contract, Northern Cross shut down.)

Hi @Puddnhead,
Thanks for making comment and for your question(s).
For me to hold no load funds through my current broker I'd have to open another account which would have a wrap fee associated with it. Thus, I stick with what I can buy at nav and/or reduced sales charges. Thus, I hold no Vanguard funds.
With respect to SPECX. It is one of my longterm holdings and due to its organic growth it now has a sizeable unrealized capital gain associated with it; and, should I sell it I'd owe the tax man. In addition, I have it paired with another Alger fund AOFAX which is closed to new investors. Both of these funds have been good long term performers for me.
American Mutual (AMFFX) is a quality fund and one that I have owned, in the past. Years back, I did a nav transfer out of it into ANCFX and no longer hold American Mutual A share, AMRMX.
Although, I do not own ANZAX I own another convertible securities fund FISCX and at one time had a whole sleeve of convetible funds. I hold FISCX in my hybrid income sleeve. It has been a good performer for me through the years. A fund that I own that has about 1/3 of its assets in convertibles is AZNAX which pays out 7 cents a share per month. That equates to about a 7.3% distribution yield based upon current valuation.
I have six small mid cap funds. They are AOFAX, FKASX, KAUAX, LPEFX, PMDAX & SMCWX. I have no plans to eliminate any of them and may add to SMCWX and KAUAX in the future.
I always enjoy reading your comments and perspectives. This is what makes the MFO board so great by the many investment ideas presented where investors are finding success. One of the things that I find of great interest in investing is that there is no one right way for finding success.
Since, I have no long necks Bud Lights ... in the fridge ... I'll have to toast you with a Bud Light ... from the can.
Keep up the good work ... and, remember me to DUKE!. Smart dog.
Take care ... Old_Skeet

SP index analyst Howard Silverblatt on 2nd quarter S&P 500 earnings:
"For Q2 2020, 313 issues have reported, as estimates for Q2 2020 have been reduced 47.9% since the start of the year, which explains why 257 issues, an astonishing 82.1% of the issues, have beaten them (the historical average is 67%). "
Estimates are way easier to beat when you lower them by nearly half, notes John Waggoner. BTW, the S&P500 increased 5.51% (5.64 with dividends), and the three-month period return was up 12.23% (12.87% w dividends).

Thanks @MikeM for the comment. I was aware of your past experience with PRPFX. I slowly established a position during 2014 and 2015 after most of the euphoria with gold had subsided. January 4, 2016 I converted it to a Roth (and discussed that here). Oil was in the dumps back than (bottoming at $26 later in January). I’m satisfied with the fund’s performance post-conversion. IMHO the fund requires a very long-term perspective and a certain personal philosophical leaning regarding money, risk, value - and markets as well. So it is definitely not for everyone.
Today it represents 11.6% of invested assets. It is the only fund I’ve chosen not to rebalance or take any distributions from in retirement. That’s intentional, as it will grow to a larger and larger portion of total investments over time. Umm ... I don’t know how large a % I’m willing to allow the fund to become. As I grow older and more conservative it may replace some riskier assets in the allocation model - particularly in the “real assets” & “balanced” sleeves room exists. I’d think 35% of total portfolio might work.
Yup - it has appeal as a lower volatility substitute for gold. That’s to the chagrin of us longer term investors who hold it through thick and thin.

@hank, as my CDs have matured and yield on CDs and MMs have gone to virtually nothing, I've also been changing "cash" into other holdings. But I've been keeping those other holdings on the conservative side. Nothing too speculative. Not reaching for yield since all my retirement money is in IRA and 401k. I'm just interested in steady, conservative, total return for this substitute for cash... with the understanding I'm also adding risk.
I've invested quite a bit of "cash" into 2 places, short term treasuries by an ETF, ISTB (Ishares 1-5 year duration) and put a substantial amount into a conservative alternative fund, MNWAX.
I used to own PRPFX years ago. As you probably remember it was one of the darlings of the board during and after the 2008 recession. By memory, I think the stocks it holds are geared towards energy which hasn't been in favor for quite a while. Always thought of it as a conservative play on gold.

@Catch22 -
The 39% YTD return for long duration zero coupon bonds is eye-catching. In seeking to enhance my cash allocation with some speculative plays last March I attempted to seek out the best risk / return possibilities in my judgment ... Sorry - But capital appreciation from long-dated “zeros” or other bonds isn’t something that comes to mind when I attempt to sort out relative risk-reward scenarios in the current financial environment. Not back in March. Not today. Others may arrive at different conclusions.
-
PS - Thanks @Catch22 for linking the chart. You’re my #1 bond guy and chart guy here. I hope you were able to pocket some of those great returns from bonds the past few months!

@Observant1 and @msf, Thank you. I am also interested in few actively managed Vanguard funds. Learned something everyday in the Vanguard world.

@hank You noted:

I’m accepting this added risk to help compensate for the extraordinarily low current interest rates

The price performance benefit of those low yields:
YTD.......
--- MINT = +1.15% (Pimco Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB quality)
--- SHY = +3.04% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +7.35% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +12.2% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +8.5% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- LTPZ = + 24.1% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds
--- TLT = +27.3% (20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +36.4% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +39.2% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds)
***Other, for reference, not AAA rated:
--- HYG = -.3% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- LQD = +9.8% (corp. bonds, various quality)
Balanced funds with properly positioned bond holdings have had great benefit to date to offset many equity positions which continue to struggle YTD.
Regards,
Catch

AS of 7/31/2020:
Marathon Asset Management LLP
Baillie Gifford Overseas Ltd.
Stay Safe, Derf

The Vanguard Global Equity Fund is the only Vanguard fund that Marathon advises.
Marathon has advised this fund since its inception in 1995.
From the December 2018 issue of 'The Independent Advisor for Vanguard Investors' newsletter:
"Original manager Marathon Asset Management generated strong returns when Global Equity got its start. Vanguard then added Acadian Asset Manangement in 2004 and Alliance Bernstein in 2006, and performance suffered. Baillie Gifford was hired as a fourth sub-advisor in 2008, but oversaw just 5% of the portfolio for several years."
"Since Baillie Gifford came on board in April 2008 through the end of September 2018, Global Equity returned 78.9%. Marathon's separate account was up 101.0% - meaning the fund still hasn't performed as well in its new form as it would have under Marathon's sole management. Baillie Gifford's separate account gained a terrific 136.9%. And as I said, Acadian's individual record brings up the rear with a 72.9% return."

Although Vanguard is often associated with indexing, its actively managed funds had more than $1.4 trillion AUM as of 12/31/2019. This makes Vanguard the third-largest active investment manager in the U.S. Low fees and talented management teams (e.g. Wellington, Primecap, Baillie Gifford) provide a considerable advantage.
Here are some of my favorite Vanguard active equity funds:
VHCAX, VPCCX, VPMAX - 100% managed by Primecap.
VDIGX, VWIAX, VWENX - 100% managed by Wellington.
VEIRX - 64% managed by Wellington, 34% managed by Vanguard, 1% cash.
VWILX - 66% managed by Baillie Gifford, 33% managed by Schroder, 1% cash.
Vanguard Global Equity Fund (VHGEX) is also on my radar now since two of the
subadvisors were removed (Alliance Bernstein in 2012, Acadian in 2018).
VHGEX - 50% managed by Baillie Gifford, 47% managed by Marathon, 3% cash
Some actively managed Vanguard funds have too many subadvisors which adds unecessary complexity and often results in subpar performance.

“My normal asset allocation is 20/40/40. As you can see I am +5% heavy on the income side of my portfolio...”
Thanks Skeet, Since you and I are in similar boats age-wise, risk-wise, I’ll share the allocation model I’ve used for the past 2 years now. Like yours, it’s a “sleep well” fairly conservative allocation. I won’t detail individual holdings, with the exception of the alternatives, as it’s a fairly ambiguous area.
25% Balanced funds
25% Global Income funds
25% Alternatives *
15% Cash / Speculative holdings **
10% Real Asset funds
* Within the alternative sleeve in order of magnitude (largest to smallest): PRPFX, TMSRX, ABRZX
** With regard to the cash / speculative sleeve, my nominal position would be 100% cash. But currently about 30% of it is devoted to a couple speculative holdings: PIEQX and PRLAX. I’m accepting this added risk to help compensate for the extraordinarily low current interest rates and to take advantage of buying opportunities presented during the March-April meltdown. PRLAX, for instance, was down 50% YTD at the time of purchase. Currently off only about 25%.
NOT investment advice. Disclaimer follows:
“Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR. Per G.G.,Chief of Ordnance” - Mark Twain

Hi guys,
As of Friday market close July 31st not much has changed in the barometer's reading as the barometer produced a reading of 128 indicating that the Index is overbought. In checking some of the barometer's data feeds ... I thought I'd share some of the inputs that might be of interest for the S&P 500 Index. The dividend yield is listed at 1.82%, the earnings yield is found to be 3.45%, earnings for the Index (TTM) are listed at $115.55 and the (TTM) P/E Ratio is listed at 28.12. However and interestingly, I'm finding that the dividend growth rate is listed at 6.43%.
Because of the fairly strong dividend growth rate Old_Skeet has been repositioning on the equity side of his portfolio and increasing his exposure to good dividend paying mutual funds and decreasing his exposure in some growth areas. Remember, I am retired and my focus is to grow my income stream since I am in the distribution phase of investing while at the same time, as a secondary objective, continue to grow my principal to offset the effects of inflation.
With this, Old_Skeet is wanting to see better meterics before he becomes a buyer of equity ballast. And, with this, I am keeping on ... keeping on ... with my current asset allocation of 15% cash, 45% income and 40% equity. My normal asset allocation is 20/40/40. As you can see I am +5% heavy on the income side of my portfolio due to low cash yields and overvalued equities. On the equity side I'm 25% in the growth and income area and 15% in the growth area. In addition, my portfolio has an income yield of about 3.4% with a distribution yield (which includes capital gain distributions) of about 5%.
Funds that I benchmark against (all with dividend yield's in the 3.4% to 3.5% range) are Income Fund of America (AMECX), Capital Income Builder (CAIBX), and American Funds Conserative G&I Allocation Fund (INPAX). A fund that I'm seeing some interest in is Cloumbia Flexible Capital Income, CFIAX. CFIAX has performed inline with my benchmark funds and with a higher yield at 4.8%. It just might soon become my 12th fund in my hybrid income sleeve.
My three best performing funds for the month of July were SPECX +7.70% ... ANWPX +7.18% ... and, DWGAX +6.70%.
Have a grand weekend ... and, I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
I am ... Old_Skeet

The article made only a passing reference to the ongoing fiscal stimulus being provided to the economy. At least a sentence or two more with some counterpoints about why the stock market will decide to ignore that stimulus would have been helpful. Here is a little of what Ed Yardini is currently writing about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

So far, all the government stimulus has provided some support for the global economy. But the virus is still out there, and so are the recessionary forces. As a result, price inflation remains subdued even though much of the ballooning fiscal deficits are being financed by central banks’ purchases of government securities, which MMTers also support. In Kelton’s dreamland, that’s a perfect outcome, because she and her merry band of arm-linked MMTers believe that the only limit on deficit-financed government spending is price inflation. Sure enough, the US government has responded precisely as she advocates, producing one stimulus program after another. Another one is imminent, sized to the tune of $1.0 trillion, which will most likely cause the Congressional Budget Office to raise its current fiscal 2020 budget deficit estimate from $3.7 trillion to $4.7 trillion

blog.yardeni.com/2020/07/welcome-to-oz-where-mmt-enables.html