The Cato institute ( with George Will's endorsement) is a very Conservative think tank focusing on individual liberty, free enterprise and economics.
They have an analysis of the massive recessionary and stagflation impact of the ICE budget. ICE budget will be $170 Billion, and will probably all be spent immediately on prisons, extra agents ($200,000 a piece) and the wall.
Cato thinks that the CBO projections of additional $3 Tr to debt are too conservative. they think there will be at least additional $4 Trillion to the debt.
$1 Trillion is the negative effects on the economy of deportations.
https://www.cato.org/blog/deportations-add-almost-1-trillion-costs-gops-big-beautiful-bill
Add to this the 50% cuts in NIH and NSF budgets, where ever dollar spent produces $3 in return, and I think you can see why we are headed for stagflation and likely a recession and/or depression.

We basically have every organization that does real number crunching saying that this budget is recessionary or inflationary, and adds significantly to the deficit/debt. Then, we have politicians and their loyal minions telling us to ignore the data and the facts.
We should just accept that removing lower wage workers from agriculture, construction, hospitality, healthcare, etc will have no impact on productivity or labor costs! We should accept that cutting revenues and not cutting spending will work out, even though it never has done so before.
If it had worked during the first Trump administration, the deficit/debt would be lower every year since. That has not happened.
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump
"The national debt has risen by almost $7.8 trillion during Trump’s time in office. That’s nearly twice as much as what Americans owe on student loans, car loans, credit cards and every other type of debt other than mortgages, combined, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It amounts to about $23,500 in new federal debt for every person in the country.
The growth in the annual deficit under Trump ranks as the third-biggest increase, relative to the size of the economy, of any U.S. presidential administration."
"Federal finances under Trump had become dire even before the pandemic. That happened even though the economy was booming and unemployment was at historically low levels.”
The combination of Trump’s 2017 tax cut and the lack of any serious spending restraint helped both the deficit and the debt soar. So when the once-in-a-lifetime viral disaster slammed our country and we threw more than $3 trillion into COVID-19-related stimulus, there was no longer any margin for error."

Will it outperform VWEAX?
The funds have similar principal investment strategies.
ETF:

The Fund invests primarily in a diversified group of high-yielding, higher-risk corporate bonds—commonly known as “junk bonds”—with medium- and lower- range credit quality ratings. Under normal circumstances, the Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes in corporate bonds that are rated below Baa by Moody’s Ratings; have an equivalent rating by any other independent bond rating agency; or, if unrated, are determined to be of comparable quality by the Fund’s advisor.

OEF (prospectus):

The Fund invests primarily in a diversified group of high-yielding, higher-risk corporate bonds—commonly known as “junk bonds”—with medium- and lower-range credit quality ratings. The Fund invests at least 80% of its assets in corporate bonds that are rated below Baa by Moody’s Ratings have an equivalent rating by any other independent bond rating agency; or, if unrated, are determined to be of comparable quality by the Fund’s advisors

Main difference (aside from distribution channel) seems to be that Vanguard (Michael Chang) will be the sole manager of the ETF, while management of VWEAX is split with Vanguard (Chang) managing 1/3 and Wellington (Elizabeth Shortsleeve) managing 2/3 (per M*).
Also, the ETF is projected to cost 10 basis points more than VWEAX, i.e. the same cost as VWEHX.

I am adding cautiously to INTL large caps. Starting in Jan 2025, I pulled back heavily on riskier assets, after riding the 2023/2024 equity wave. But, this rationale was twofold. I needed to pull back due to impending retirement (2026). And the tariff chaos was well-telegraphed. I added about 60%, of what I pulled out, back to equities on April 8, when the WH signaled they were backing down on harsh rhetoric and tariff rates. This got me to where I am now (58/15/27). I have added to PIMIX and PFN and PDO in the last month, as well, on hopes rates are really going to tick down by the 4th quarter.
This is all in regards to the short and medium term.
Obviously, the debt/deficit and inflation are on people's minds right now. The long term. And we KNOW that Trump will insert his agent into the FED in mid-2026 and try to push rates down significantly. I believe this has two implications, That inflation may gain a foothold and could become a problem. And that it will probably help existing bond fund prices.
There are a lot of plates spinning. Caution and FOMO are battling it out. My totally unqualified view is that the second half of 2025 could be decent, IF jobs and inflation do not deteriorate too much. And if the FED cuts, the markets will be enthralled. Rate cuts should help tech, as they use debt heavily to finance growth. This, and the tight labor market might, offset any job losses. Inflation is the wild card, How does the FED deal with inflation, should it exceed 3%, and they have already cut rates? Do they let it run? Does a new Trump FED appointee appease, or do the right thing? From an investing standpoint, how do bonds and stocks react if the FED is forced to raise rates. Or fails to do so in the face of inflation?
As always, I am open to respectful disagreement and alternative opinion. And healthy debate.

During the past 45 years, Congressional Republicans were fiscally conservative
only when Democrats controlled the executive branch.
Oh, how they wailed obsessingly about fiscal rectitude!

You of all people should have a subscription
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/opinion/trump-budget-big-beautiful-bill.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Tk8.wSgs.OFKFM1hFVG9H&smid=url-share

This article should be required reading. People should be compelled to discuss it and debate it or even try to refute it, in an honest fashion
"The Republican Party controls both houses of Congress and the White House. Mr. Trump and his allies have the power to deliver a fiscally responsible plan. Instead, they are playing make-believe.
A small number of Senate Republicans have expressed reservations about this situation. Senator Rick Scott of Florida has said the projected growth in the debt is “fiscal insanity,” and Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has called it “unacceptable.” They’re right about that much. The refusal to confront America’s fiscal problems has a price, and it is rising rapidly."

I'm "impressed."
Many said similar stuff about Trump first term and the economy was pretty good for years until covid.
Who can forget Nobel Prize Krugman "great" forecast in 2016.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/krugman-trump-global-recession-2016-231055

That Centene 40% loss yesterday hit AQR's QMNNX and QLENX (which I own and I think some others here do too). Acc'ding to Cramer on CNBC, Centene had to pull its 2025 guidance, as its 'managed care' business in the ACA marketplace is getting smacked by (apparently) healthier people pulling out, leaving sicker folks overrepresented versus its model for profit. Said Cramer, the Medicaid effect may have not been entirely felt just yet. (I have no idea how he knows what the relative impact on their ACA vs. Medicaid exposure really is.)
Catch's catch is for sure a wakeup call for the broad impact of the lunatics' healthcare massacre. (As he wrote, it hits the ACA too.)

940-page budget is hard to summarize in a short table, but CBNC tried that for its tax implications anyway.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/03/trump-big-beautiful-bill-tax-changes.html

You of all people should have a subscription
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/opinion/trump-budget-big-beautiful-bill.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Tk8.wSgs.OFKFM1hFVG9H&smid=url-share

The Cato institute ( with George Will's endorsement) is a very Conservative think tank focusing on individual liberty, free enterprise and economics.
They have an analysis of the massive recessionary and stagflation impact of the ICE budget. ICE budget will be $170 Billion, and will probably all be spent immediately on prisons, extra agents ($200,000 a piece) and the wall.
Cato thinks that the CBO projections of additional $3 Tr to debt are too conservative. they think there will be at least additional $4 Trillion to the debt.
$1 Trillion is the negative effects on the economy of deportations.
https://www.cato.org/blog/deportations-add-almost-1-trillion-costs-gops-big-beautiful-bill
Add to this the 50% cuts in NIH and NSF budgets, where ever dollar spent produces $3 in return, and I think you can see why we are headed for stagflation and likely a recession and/or depression.

You can read more here: TGN Bull Extends, Plus 2025 Mid-Year Review.

Hi @bee The below are results for an ACA impact search relative to HR-1. I will presume that the information is accurate. Hopefully, there is some information of value for you.
NOTE: implementation dates are not part of this information.
Regards,
Catch
Key Impacts on the ACA and its Marketplaces:
Millions losing coverage: Changes to the ACA marketplaces within H.R. 1 are estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to lead to at least 3 million people losing their marketplace coverage.
Challenges to enrollment and potential premium increases: The bill makes it harder for individuals to enroll in and keep their ACA marketplace plans, potentially resulting in higher premiums by reducing available tax credits.
Expiration of enhanced premium tax credits: H.R. 1 does not extend the enhanced premium tax credits, which were established in 2021 and have helped millions afford marketplace coverage. Their expiration is projected to lead to an additional 4.2 million people becoming uninsured and would be equivalent to a tax increase averaging $700 for millions.
Destabilization of the marketplaces: The combination of these policies is expected to destabilize the marketplaces, reducing access to coverage and increasing the number of uninsured individuals and the amount of uncompensated care provided by hospitals.
Elimination of automatic reenrollment: The bill requires annual re-verification of eligibility for individuals receiving premium tax credits, eliminating the automatic reenrollment that nearly 11 million people used in 2025. This adds an administrative burden and could lead to higher premiums for those who don't reenroll promptly.
No provisional eligibility: Applicants will have to pay full, unsubsidized premiums while awaiting eligibility determinations, which can take weeks or months.
Removal of repayment cap: The bill removes the cap on how much individuals must repay if they receive excess premium tax credits due to income changes, potentially adding financial risk to those with unpredictable incomes.
Shortened open enrollment period: The annual open enrollment period would be shortened to November 1st - December 15th, while in 2025, roughly 40% of enrollees signed up after December 15th.
End to special enrollment periods: The monthly low-income special enrollment period and state-based marketplace special enrollment periods based on income would be eliminated.
Increased administrative burden for income verification: Individuals with incomes between 100-400% of the Federal Poverty Level would face new income verification processes when applying for premium tax credits.
Potential Impact on Medicaid:
Increase in uninsured population: Changes to Medicaid proposed in the bill are estimated to cause 7.8 million individuals to become uninsured by 2034.
Community engagement requirements: The bill would impose community engagement requirements for certain Medicaid recipients, which could lead to coverage losses.
More frequent redeterminations: States would be required to redetermine eligibility for the Medicaid expansion population every 6 months, instead of the current 12 months.
Delay of eligibility rule: A Biden administration rule aimed at simplifying redeterminations and removing barriers to Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollment would be delayed.
Note: These are potential impacts based on analysis of H.R. 1 as of July 3, 2025. The final impacts may vary depending on the ultimate outcome of the legislative process

AAII Sentiment Survey, 7/2/25
BULLISH became the top sentiment (45.0%, above average) & neutral remained the bottom sentiment (21.9%, low*); bearish became the middle sentiment (33.1%, above average); Bull-Bear Spread was +11.9% (above average). Investor concerns: Tariffs, budget, jobs, inflation, recession, Fed, debt, dollar, geopolitical, Russia-Ukraine (175+ weeks), Israel-Hamas (67+14 weeks). For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks up, bonds up, oil up, gold up, dollar down. NYSE %Above 50-dMA 78.77% (overbought oversold). The Senate version of the budget bill is now at the House. July 9 tariff deadline is next week. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
Sentiments are CONTRARIAN indicators.
*Uncertainty in the outlook is unusually low.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2073/thread

a likely future
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/opinion/trump-budget-big-beautiful-bill.html

Bond returns cooled in the second quarter, as investors worried about the inflationary impact of tariffs and the growing federal budget deficit.
The actively managed Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Bond Fund outperformed, while the PIMCO Total Return Fund fell behind its peers.
The Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond ETF ranked in the top decile of its category, while the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF lagged.

https://morningstar.com/funds/how-largest-bond-funds-did-q2-2025

CGDV has whupped the S&P 500 since its creation. It's a classic growth and income fund.
If you were strictly interested in the dividends, and your only North Star is the 500, it would have been advisable to have gotten into them around five years ago, and then held on. I'm looking at funds like ONEY, RDIV, FDVV that are beating the return of SPY over the past five years no matter what has happened to them recently. There are probably others.
On my watch list I have to go back ten years to find SPY in the top fifteen funds. Most of the funds ahead of it back in the days of ZIRP were growth funds. And then there was the predecessor to BBLU. I think it still tends to beat SPY, depending on when you bought it.
Then COVID hit. And over the last five years I see SPY down to around #37. Over three years it climbs back up to #24. Over 12 months, returns were back down to 44 despite the fact it was "setting a record." YTD? Ringing in at #50, and another "record."
If one were paying attention to the actual return, one might get the impression that for the 500, things have changed.

I agree with you and I've been tracking their progress along with the addition of CGDV and QLTY into the mix. Why? I felt the addition of one or the other would add to my overall portfolio balance but I couldn't choose which one. I started positions in all 3 and here is the total return to date using the TCAF starting date.
CGDV 47.37%
TCAF 39.24%
SPY 39.97%
Since QLTY did not begin trading until 11/30/23 (QLTY inception) here are those total return figures.
CGDV 42.02
QLTY 33.27
TCAF 32.84
SPY 35.94
I agree that a longer time period is needed for fair judgment.