To be clear, I stated (bold added)...
After just a cursory look, if it was our money and if we were selecting a VG "tax managed" fund...
Per one of the links I provided, there are three VG "tax managed" funds. VCTLX significantly outperforms the other two and whatever tax consequences relate to all three are muted (forgotten?) due to that.
It is NOT our money.
If it were our money, we would NOT be selecting a VG "tax managed" fund, we would be selecting an ETF.
[NOTE, on that, in my 1st post I stated, We expect there will be plenty of better tax-efficient options than the VG (or other) tax-managed mutual fund options.]
I probably should have super-sized and bolded the two "ifs" in my 2nd post!

If you feel that reversion to the long-term mean is pending, you are probably holding off on any large buys. But if you really feel that a catastrophic plunge is pending - then maybe you either go short or hold 100% cash, no?
Logic dictates that the markets should have been reacting to new US policy changes that will effect the global economy, but apparently logic plays no part in the short-term market outlook.

21st Feb '25.
A sea of red in the Markets today. Bought just several shares of my favorite baby: ET. Not a bad place to be, for the moment: dividend two days ago. Free money. Today, I brought my cost basis down a bit, as well. Pleased with myself that I got in when I did.
...Let's all pay attention now, and watch while uncle Orange dismantles all that is good and true and beautiful. And profitable....

I bought a few shares of BABA and CQQQ. The case for Chinese shares (a tentative case) is looking up. Jack Ma of BABA has resurfaced and is back in Xi Jinping's good graces. The P/E ratios are relatively low and BABA just reported excellent earnings yesterday. Yes, this is speculative, but there could be some room to run given the stimulus coming from the Chinese government. Even M* predicts 27% upside for BABA.
https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/202502213605/chinese-stocks-rally-on-strong-alibaba-earnings-deepseek-optimism

If VTCLX floats your boat, there are a couple of ETFs tracking the R1K. VONE (Vanguard) and IWB (iShares). VTCLX also tracks the R1K though more loosely for better tax efficiency.
The ETFs have slightly higher tax cost ratios than VTCLX (0.41% and 0.40% respectively vs. 0.31%). Over the past 1 and 3 years they have slightly outperformed VTCLX pre-tax (with Vanguard's ETF being the best), though VTCLX has done slightly better over five years.
Here's Portfolio Visualizer's comparison of these funds over 10 years.
VTCLX has 65% in unrealized gains while the ETFs have lower exposure (likely due to their ETF structure): 17% for IWB and 35% for VONE.
Again, when it comes to tracking market cap weighted indexes, you can often find "regular" funds that are comparable to ones focused on tax efficiency. This tool may help finding comparable ETFs:
https://etfdb.com/tool/mutual-fund-to-etf/

The only competitor for VTMFX that I'm aware of is TAIFX. It is also 5*, also M* silver-rated (FWIW), but performance is slightly less.
Index funds are naturally somewhat tax efficient. So with a fund like VTMSX you might look at "regular" index funds. For example, VIOO (Vanguard's "regular" S&P 600 index ETF) has a tax cost ratio of 0.40% and unrealized gains of virtually zero vs. VTMSX's 0.41% and 24% in unrealized gains.
When it comes to bonds (not exactly what you were asking about), tax-efficient (munis) funds may not produce the best after-tax returns. I haven't been looking at bond funds lately, but when it comes to MMFs, Treasury or Treasury only funds have been doing better than muni MMFs after tax.
Finally, perhaps the most tax-efficient way to deal with unneeded RMDs is to make qualified charitable contributions. You're not left with any earnings or principal, but it's certainly tax-efficient and might leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling.

We have not paid FIT/SIT since 2012 and won't take RMDs until Age 73, so no direct experience (yet) with your question. That said, it will be a very important question for us in a few years.
We will start our analysis at that time with a comparison of all other options versus ITOT, VOO and the like. We expect there will be plenty of better tax-efficient options than the VG (or other) tax-managed mutual fund options. But that's a job for us for another day a few years from now.
Here's a primer for your current analysis:
https://russellinvestments.com/us/blog/understanding-tax-managed-funds-and-strategies
https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/investment-products/etf/etfs-tax-efficiency
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/25-top-picks-tax-efficient-etfs-mutual-funds
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Tax-managed_fund_comparison

I didn't realize that FullerThaler sub-managed any funds. This (UBVAX) is a SCV fund. The same managers as this fund also manage an open MCV fund under the FullerThaler name: FTVNX.
In the SCV space, FullerThaler does offer one fund, FTMSX, but it is microcap, has different managers, is the worst rated of the family's funds, and is only available in institutional share class (TF, though with $1 min at Schwab).

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1047712/000119312525030708/d835373d497.htm
497 1 d835373d497.htm UNDISCOVERED MANAGERS FUNDS
UNDISCOVERED MANAGERS FUNDS
Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Value Fund
(the “Fund”)
(All Share Classes)
Supplement dated February 20, 2025
to the Current Prospectuses, Summary Prospectuses and Statements of Additional
Information, as supplemented
Effective as of the close of business on April 1, 2025 (the “Closing Date”), the Fund is offered on a limited basis and investors are not eligible to purchase shares of the Fund, except as described below. In addition, both before and after the Closing Date, the Fund may from time to time, in its sole discretion based on the Fund’s net asset levels and other factors, limit new purchases into the Fund or otherwise modify the closure policy at any time on a case-by-case basis.
The following groups will be permitted to continue to purchase Fund shares. Except as otherwise described below, shareholders of record are permitted to continue to purchase shares; if the shareholder of record is an omnibus account, beneficial owners in that account as of the applicable closing date are permitted to continue to purchase:
•Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date are able to continue to purchase additional shares in their existing Fund accounts and may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions from shares owned in the Fund;
•Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date are able to add to their existing Fund accounts through exchanges from other J.P. Morgan Funds;
•Group Retirement Plans (as defined in the glossary) (and their successor, related and affiliated plans), which have the Fund available to participants on or before the Closing Date may continue to open accounts for new participants and can purchase additional shares in existing participant accounts. A new Group Retirement Plan may establish a new account with the Fund only if the Group Retirement Plan has been accepted for investment by the Fund and its distributor by May 1, 2025 and the plan’s account with the Fund must be either funded by the plan or available to participant directed investments by October 31, 2025. The funding date for plans approved by May 1st may be extended with approval by the Fund and its distributor;
•Fully discretionary fee-based advisory programs, where investment discretion (fund and investment allocations) solely reside with the Financial Intermediary’s home office and where the Financial Intermediary’s home office has full authority to make investment changes without approval from the shareholder, may continue to utilize the Fund for new and existing program accounts. This includes affiliated platforms that have approval from the Fund and its distributor. These programs must be accepted for continued investment by the Fund and its distributor by the Closing Date. Additionally, after the Closing Date, new fully discretionary fee-based advisory programs may utilize the Fund for program accounts only with the approval by the Fund and its distributor;
•Registered Investment Advisory firms who have included the Fund in their discretionary models by the closing date and utilize an approved clearing platform may continue to make Fund shares available to new and existing accounts. These particular firms must be accepted for continued investment by the Fund and its distributor on or before the Closing Date;
•Other fee-based advisory programs (including Rep as Advisor and Portfolio Manager programs) may continue to utilize the Fund for existing program accounts, but will not be able to open new program accounts after the Closing Date;
•Model portfolios directed by J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (“JPMIM”), and J.P. Morgan Funds that are permitted to invest in other J.P. Morgan Funds, may purchase shares of the Fund; and
•Named investment professionals listed in the Fund’s prospectus may utilize the Fund for both new accounts and existing Fund accounts.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT WITH THE
PROSPECTUSES, SUMMARY PROSPECTUSES AND
STATEMENTS OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

10-4.

OJ - Likewise I agree with your points.
My concern is that painting with broad brushstrokes, conflating the messengers with the messages, inculcates distrust in government research and analysis. And in doing so, enables "Donald Trump and his cohort of propagandists".
Courts are sowing the same distrust. In overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court said that they understand complex issues better than subject experts.
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference
Here's a recent NPR report on the 'crumbling infrastructure' of federal data.

The statistical agencies are also faced with a crisis facing the broader survey and polling industry — a shrinking rate of people willing to answer questions.

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/24/nx-s1-5250264/unemployment-rate-cpi-inflation-census-bureau-labor-statistics
Distrust extends well beyond answering surveys. Vaccinations, for example. I hear that the results aren't in yet. That's not what government and government-sponsored research data say. Rather it's how politicians (and one in particular) are presenting that data.
We are in violent agreement. I'm just trying not to throw out the baby (data) with the bathwater (misinterpretation, whether deliberate or simply the result of misunderstanding).

Last week I added lightly to QLENX, my lone purchase since Halloween. Still don't trust this market one bit but that dang fund just keeps marching.

Halloween is as good a time to adjust holdings as any other I suppose. I’ve targeted the 2 solstices and 2 equinoxes as the points for potential quarterly rebalancing myself.
With you @Mark in that I haven’t changed holdings much since last fall. Did bump cash up from 10% to near 12.5% a few weeks back. But that had as much to do with anticipated yearly distributions as anything else. As a conservative old F*** I stick to lower volatility holdings with a value & international tilt. Very little exposure to the big heavyweights like the Mag 7.
PS - Why use the solar cycle for rebalance dates? That’s one thing Trump can’t change. :)

Investor concerns: Jobs, budget, debt, inflation, the Fed, dollar, geopolitical, Russia-Ukraine (156+ weeks), Israel-Hamas (67+ weeks; cease fire). For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks up, bonds up, oil up, gold up, dollar down. NYSE %Above 50-dMA 57.10% (positive). Only SP500 made new highs

Been thinking along that along that since late last year.

AAII Sentiment Survey, 2/19/25
BEARISH remained the top sentiment (40.5%, high) & bullish became the bottom sentiment (29.2%, below average); neutral became the middle sentiment (30.3%, below average); Bull-Bear Spread was -11.3% (low). Investor concerns: Jobs, budget, debt, inflation, the Fed, dollar, geopolitical, Russia-Ukraine (156+ weeks), Israel-Hamas (67+ weeks; cease fire). For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks up, bonds up, oil up, gold up, dollar down. NYSE %Above 50-dMA 57.10% (positive). Only SP500 made new highs. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1884/thread

Blog of the Video from 2/17.
https://bilello.blog/2025/the-week-in-charts-2-19-25

+1.

that the government was telling the voters that all was OK
The government (read Bureau of Labor Statistics) produced accurate data, though with misleading headlines. It was politicians and some reporters (who knew better or were ignorant) who told voters that the numbers meant "that all was OK".
In a similar vein, was it the government or Democratic politicians saying that Biden was in great shape?
Old joke: how can you tell when a politician is lying?
https://www.thecut.com/2015/11/here-is-one-way-to-tell-if-a-politician-is-lying.html
This matters for two reasons at least:
1. Understanding data: If one doesn't understand what data represents (definitions, methodology) then one can be led astray or be confused. Hence questions about how Morningstar analysts could possibly praise 1 star funds (e.g. gold-rated OAKIX).
2. Accuracy of government data: Traditionally the data produced by government departments has been accurate and apolitical. Tradition is being upset as we speak. My realtor told me this afternoon that when she looked up flood maps on FEMA, the first thing she saw was:

FEMA.gov is being updated to comply with President Trump's Executive Orders. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-top-noaa-scientist-craig-mclean-trump-sharpie-gate-warning/

Reinvesting divvy from ET. The limit Order price has not been reached yet.
EDIT TO ADD: new shares added at $19.99. Indices are seriously down, this morning.

Its funny what we consider "employment" and what we consider important "statistics".
I stopped my "full time career employment" at age 51. I spent the next 7 years caring for my elderly mom. I went from a well paying 8 hour job to a non-paying 24 hour job. Since this new job paid nothing and provided no resources it required many long nights of research to identify resources and funds for my mom's care. Over these eight years, I managed both my mom's diminishing health and her dwindling net worth.
Most of my other seven siblings were too busy with their employed lives to help much when it came to this non-paying family care position. As alone as I was, I am not the only one who has taken on this type of non-paying work.
From young Moms and Dads who stay at home to care for their children to middle aged adults taking care of their elderly parents, many working age Americans choose to work outside of the workforce, often for their entire working life.
My mom raised 8 Kids; never took a day off in her life, but also never had an "employment record". When my dad passed, at age 54, she received nothing more than a survivor's benefit. At age 88, adjusted for inflation, her survivor benefit was a meager $800/month.
For me, working until 65 would have made a huge difference in my retirement savings, but I am not sure I could have lived with that decision. I chose to care for my mom because she chose to care for the eight of us.
These articles focus on workplace employment statistics, yet ignore the very important non-paying and non-workplace work many of us chose to do for our loved ones and how these hard choices impact the workplace.

His point, as I take it, is that the numbers, though accurate are misunderstood. So things are worse than people get from the numbers reading them simplistically. True enough. But then he goes and does the same thing by simplistically presenting some reasons why the numbers don't say what people think they say.
For example, he says that U-3 (full time employment) disregards "does not take into account many Americans who have been so discouraged that they are no longer trying to get a job". Something well known to anyone in Washington who relies on this datum for policy decisions as opposed to making political points.
More importantly, this is a petty distortion. The U-4 figure, which includes these out-of-the-labor-force people, is 4.3% (Jan 2025), as opposed to 4.0% for U-3. And since U-4 is always higher than U-3, this "distortion" cannot have grown much if any over the past two decades.
Here's my source:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=50&eid=4773
He gives a figure for unemployed that includes not only those employed part time and those discouraged from seeking employment (U-6, 7.5% in table cited above), but those earning less than poverty wage. His figure adds 16.2% to the U-6 number.
The latest (2022) BLS figures on the working poor (over age 16, working at least 27 weeks) is 4.0% of the labor force.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/2022/home.htm
Delving deeper (Table 6 in the report), it gives the total number of people working at all (1 week or more) over age 16 as 172M. The number of those working who are below the poverty level is 8.6M. That's 5% of people who worked at all. This is not precisely comparable to his 16.2% figure because definition of poverty may be different, but it does give one pause.
Bottom line: I agree with his broad thesis that headline numbers don't present an accurate picture and that politicians take advantage of this. But at the same time, ISTM he's playing a similar game with figures.
As someone here already said, a pox on all you guys.