”pursues its investment objective by investing under normal circumstances at least 80% of its net assets (plus borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities of U.S. and non-U.S. companies that Tweedy, Browne Company … believes are undervalued, and where either the company’s “insiders” have been actively purchasing the company’s equity securities and/or the company is conducting “opportunistic share buybacks.” … the Adviser considers a company’s “insiders” to be corporate officers, such as the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, and/or directors, or controlling shareholders, who would typically own 10% or more of the company's outstanding shares … “
Amazing the different “strategies” they can come up with. :)

Gosh, why would Dump want to remove consumer protections????
https://www.thedailybeast.com/more-than-800k-have-lost-2b-on-trumps-meme-coin/
"President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency, called $Trump, has cost investors billions. Trump announced the launch of his meme coin—a type of cryptocurrency that features Internet memes or celebrity mascots—just three days before his inauguration. “Join my very special Trump Community. GET YOUR $TRUMP NOW,” he wrote on TruthSocial. The opening sale for one of the 5,971,750 tokens was just 18 cents, but it quickly surged to $75. Early traders who purchased the meme coins within minutes walked away with profits, with the earliest trader making a two-day profit of $109 million, according to an analysis by the New York Times. But the price of $Trump has since plummeted to about $17, costing a far larger group cumulative losses of $2 billion. As of the middle of the week, more than 810,000 crypto wallets have lost money on the bet, an examination by crypto forensics firm Chainalysis showed. Meanwhile, the Trumps have raked in over $100 million in trading fees as Trump makes moves to curb government efforts to regulate cryptocurrencies.
“The president is participating in shady crypto schemes that harm investors while at the same time appointing financial regulators who will roll back protections for victims and who may insulate him and his family from enforcement,” Corey Frayer, who recently left his job as a crypto adviser to the Securities and Exchange Commission, told the New York Times."

On August 24, 2015, exchange traded products (ETPs) experienced a real life stress test.
Curiously, less than two months earlier there was another real life stress test albeit a much smaller one. On June 29, 2015, the Greek banks and stock market were shut down for several weeks.
Two different ETFs tracking the Greek market responded differently. GRE, a European ETF, was closed while GREK, a US ETF, remained open. Perhaps there are (rare) times when ETFs can close even when they don't absolutely have to.

Global markets have plunged into the red as the Greek government has shut its banks and stock exchange, sending its citizens into a panic. As a result, Lyxor has temporarily halted creations and redemptions of its Greek equity ETF [GRE], casting doubt over whether its price reflects the underlying assets.
...
Lyxor has updated its website today to read: “Due to exceptional circumstances affecting the Greek market, including the closure of the Greek stock exchange, we have decided, in the unit holders’ interest, to temporarily suspend subscriptions and redemptions of the units of the Lyxor UCITS ETF FTSE ATHEX LARGE CAP […].”

https://www.etf.com/sections/news/lyxor-suspends-activity-greek-etf-amid-turmoil

Lyxor’s decision has come under particular scrutiny because Global X, a US manager, has allowed investors to continue to trade its $322 million Greek ETF [GREK]

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/05/lyxor-had-no-choice-in-closure-of-greek-etf.html

Immediately after the markets closed in Athens, Global X issued a new prospectus update changing how they were going to deal with the market disruption. Here’s a quote.
“During the closure of the Athens Exchange, the Fund will fair value its security holdings for which current market valuations are not currently available using fair value pricing pursuant to the pricing policy and procedures approved by the Fund’s Board of Trustees.”
...
GREK never officially closed for creations and redemptions (instead, moving the portfolio toward the best basket of liquid ADRs they could manage)

https://www.etf.com/sections/etfcom-analysis/greece-etf-grek-shines-during-turmoil

@Hank. + 1000. Sit tight.,,,, until markets settle down. Hell yes. The last ten days have been the longest year of my life. Might be a long wait.

"Here is the richest man in the world bragging about eliminating an agency that has delivered $21 billion back to working-class families since its inception," said Democrats on the House Committee on Financial Services, led by Ranking Member Maxine Waters of California. "Even most Republicans want the CFPB to continue protecting them from being ripped off by abusive big banks and predatory lenders."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/musk-cfpb-2671120924
"Here are the FACTS: 81% of voters, both Republicans and Democrats, support the CFPB and want the agency to continue its work," said Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), also a member of the committee. "Even so, Trump has moved to freeze the CFPB to take money out of YOUR pocket to line those of his billionaire friends."

@YBB. Thanks for your response. The 4.10% distribution I noted above is the annualized % on the day of last months distribution and at the same time the SEC yield is noted at 4.24%. So why the difference. Almost all of my other bond funds pay their distribution annualized within 1-2 basis points of the announced 30 day SEC yield? So do I expect 4.10 % distribution from the fund on an annualized basis or the 30 day SEC yield if there is absolutely no change in rates or fund fees for the next 364 days?

Maybe someone can explain why the 30 day sec yield is supposed to be able for investors to use in comparing bond fund yields but there is a discrepancy of 14 basis points for example in the latest distribution. Why does USFR hold back these 14 basis points and therefore the 30 day SEC yield is meaningless as a comparison tool in this case. Latest distribution was 4.10 %. 30 day SEC yield is 4.24% as both are notated on the USFR page at Wisdom Tree.

Small investors may have access to Collective Investment Trusts (CITs) via their 401(k) plans.
https://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance/dont-know-about-cits-you-probably-should

msf: "ETFs can't be closed."
What is the law or rule that says an ETF is not allowed to close inflows?

There's no rule of law that gives ETFs an advantage over OEFs when it comes to taxes. In fact, the law that says a fund can make embedded gains vanish by offloading them onto investors was written many years before ETFs ever existed.
It's not a rule of law, but a rule of reality - pragmatism - that prevents OEFs from doing this. In order to dump cap gains onto an investor redeeming shares, a fund must redeem those shares in kind. A few OEFs are even known to do this, e.g. Sequoia. But generally only for larger redemptions.
Similarly, it's not that ETFs are prohibited by law from closing, but as others have explained above, pragmatically the chaos it would cause is an effective bar.
Sequoia fund gives departing shareholders stock instead of cash (Investment News 2016)

A provision in the 1940 Investment Company Act allows funds to pay redemptions in securities, rather than cash, but it's a provision that's rarely used, in part because in-kind redemptions could damage a fund's reputation. ... Under the law, the fund doesn't have to distribute in-kind redemptions in proportion to the fund's holdings.

Sequoia prospectus, May 1, 2024

• Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Fund may pay the redemption price to you in cash or in portfolio securities, or partly in cash and partly in portfolio securities.
• The Fund has adopted a policy under which the Fund may limit cash payments in connection with redemption requests to $250,000 during any ninety (90) day period. As a result, the Fund may pay you in securities or partly in securities if the amount of Fund shares that you redeem is more than $250,000.
• It is highly likely that the Fund will pay you in securities or partly in securities if you make a redemption (or series of redemptions) in an amount greater than $250,000

Schwab platform fees for most OEFs:
NTF funds
- OneSource (retail): typically 0.40%, can be as high as 0.45%
- Retirement plans (e.g. 401k): usually 0.10% to 0.50%, can be as high as 1.10%
TF funds: typically 0.10%, can be as high as 0.25%

An increased transaction fee [currently $74.95] applies to purchases made by self-directed retail clients of funds from certain fund families that do not pay Schwab for recordkeeping, shareholder, and other administrative services on fund shares held by self-directed retail clients

Those families are Vanguard, D&C, and Fidelity.
Schwab's automatic investment plan, begun in 2023, allows one to buy additional shares of most mutual funds except those for which Schwab charges "an increased transaction fee". So you can't cheaply buy additional shares of Vanguard, D&C, or Fidelity funds at Schwab.

Sven: At Fidelity's transaction-fee platform, Vanguard and Dodge & Cox funds will cost $100 to buy, whereas the typical fee is $49.95. Not sure with Schwab's purchase policy.
Both Fido and Schwab charge mutual fund firms platform fees (25-50 bps), whether NTF or TF.
Standard TF fees apply to mutual funds that pay. But higher TF fees apply to those mutual funds that don't pay.
Then, there are some mutual funds that aren't even supported at these platforms.
So, Fido and Schwab aren't providing their mutual fund platforms as public service. This is one lucrative area that remains for them that is untouched by the drive to zero commissions. Options are another area.

In the past we owned all the Vanguard funds mentioned in this tread. We have since left majority of them awhile back for the same reasons that pr viusly mentioned. How times have changed for Wellington and Primecap funds that trail their peers for a long time, even with low fees. I suspect the dominance of growth stocks in particularly the Mag 7 in the last 10 years contributes to this.
In our taxable account, we still hold their index funds. As we transitioned to ETFs and there are many solid choices, our index funds will be replaced gradually.
At Fidelity's transaction-fee platform, Vanguard and Dodge & Cox funds will cost $100 to buy, whereas the typical fee is $49.95. Not sure with Schwab's purchase policy.

Flash-crashes are other unusual examples that I didn't include. Regulators say that these are less likely to happen now. We will see.
2010 Flash Crash was a black swan event that was thoroughly investigated and some market reforms came out of those. Moreover, many trades at stub-prices were cancelled. Beware that trade cancellations weren't done for subsequent smaller mini flash-crashes and the etf investors who relied on stop-loss orders had genuine losses from those.
As the link by @Observant1 explains, in those very fast moving selloff, the APs and market-makers withdrew because those processes do take some time and by that time the market just produced more losses. The APs and market-makers now are under no obligation to be in the market like the old NYSE dedicated "specialists" did. So, the bids soon fell to default stub-bids that you sometimes see when the markets are not open. These default bid/ask stub-prices are just to feed our IT monsters and aren't supposed to be hit when the markets are open, but in 2010, they did. Regulators thought, and still think, that having multiple APs/market-makers makes this less likely.
Market reforms did address one problem. In 2010, there wasn't any intermarket coordination. So, when a security was halted on its primary exchange (under the SEC jurisdiction), it continued to trade in the derivative markets (under the CFTC jurisdiction) - options and futures. So, people sold in whatever markets kept trading. Now the rule is that if a security is halted in its primary exchange during the market hours, it's also halted automatically (i.e. by default) in the secondary exchanges AND the derivatives markets (options, futures) - UNLESS the regulators allow it. That's a good rule that should prevent accidents in future. But regulators do allow exceptions - derivatives have kept trading when, for example, the HK or the Russian markets were shut for days and the derivative markets provided useful price-discovery functions during those episodes. This also happens daily for off-hour trading.
My take from all this is that the etf investors should avoid market-orders during the first or the last half-hours. Strange things can happen from overnight accumulation of overseas orders at the open, or from market-on-close (MOC) orders that index funds use to minimize index tracking errors. It's common sense that when you see (or expect) a herd of elephants pass through, just step out of the way.

If an E.T.F. was closed, Authorized Participants (APs) would be unable to effectively
support E.T.F. creation/redemption mechanisms to maintain NAV/Price stability.
On August 24, 2015, exchange traded products (ETPs) experienced a real life stress test.
APs failed to support ETPs which caused a large divergence between net asset values and market prices.
There were 1,046 circuit breaker trading halts affecting 317 different ETPs.
"In this case (as it was in the 2010 Flash Crash), when Authorized Participants/market makers
cease to support ETPs they can swiftly and substantially decline in price."
"When the market became stressed, the Authorized Participants/market makers
again walked away from the buy-side of the market and many ETPs collapsed.
Several important ETPs, including those based on the S&P 500 companies,
became unhinged from their index and underlying asset values and triggered circuit breakers."
"There is no rationalization for these swings in valuation in an orderly supply and demand marketplace.
This trading was driven by high frequency and algorithmic computer trading programs.
It is obvious there is enough evidence to suggest that computer-driven trading
can in fact change portfolio values of the U.S. by trillions of dollars in very short periods of time."
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-11-15/s71115-38.pdf

From the Article:

Some calculators are old and janky web 1.0 projects. Some are simply loss leaders for a brand to sell you something. We’ll help cut through the mess and show you the best retirement calculators available today.

I played around with the AARP and the FICalc sites and they seemed informative.
I wish Optimal Retirement Planner (https://i-orp.com) was still active. I liked it's robust inputs options. Anyone aware of it resurrecting itself to individual investors?
https://ptmoney.com/best-retirement-calculators/

You wrote: "some arrogance involved. primecap and wellington had many years to ask vanguard to adopt an etf structure for tax\trading benefits."
Seems a bit presumptive to infer that they didn't ask vanguard to adopt an ETF structure merely from the fact that Vanguard didn't do so.
Regardless, if Primecap had wanted to run some funds with an ETF structure it had its own company to do this.
I wrote that AUM didn't seem to be a major concern of Primecap. Perhaps I should have written that growing AUM doesn't seem to be a major objective. Primecap has always been concerned about the size of its AUM being too large. That's why both Vanguard and Primecap Odyssey funds have had multiyear (even multidecade) closures. Even though that impeded "how they get paid". Responsible managers do things like that.
ETFs can't be closed. Why would Primecap open wide the inflow spigot with ETFs while simultaneously keeping their OEF funds closed?
primecap and wellington dont care bout their fund AUM plunges
What AUM plunge? Despite closures, despite outflows, Vanguard Primecap's AUM stands at or near its all time peak:
Current: $75.9B (per M*)
Sept 2024: $78B
Sept 2023: $65B
Sept 2022: $56B
Sept 2021: $74B
Sept 2020: $64B
Sept 2019: $63B
Sept 2018: $69B
Sept 2017: $58B
Sept 2016: $47B
Sept 2015: $42B
Prospectus Jan 31, 2025 and Prospectus Jan 31, 2020

Rosenberg p.2 summary :
relying on same signals that predicted (eventually !) gfc recession. more wary of timing, but ~1-2 yrs.
again, suggests equity in canadian div growers w/long track records.

Feb 8th Episode:

Going against the consensus again, influential economist David Rosenberg explains why inflation will be lower and the Fed will have to cut interest rates more than expected in the year ahead.

Some links from the interview:
BeigeBook_2025
Maybe consider a Canada fund= FICDX or etf FCCQ

Barron's article regarding Vanguard expense ratio reductions
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/vanguard-makes-biggest-cuts-to-fund-fees-in-its-history/ar-AA1yktLq

With respect to my Schwab experience an "ordinary" check (an unexpected inheritance of several hundred thousand dollars) was accepted for deposit, and placed into the sweep account. It was around 4pm PST, after the NY market close. I then walked home, and some 15 minutes later placed a buy order for SUTXX, which was accepted and was filled on the following day.