@Mark have you taken a look at FCNTX lately? Certainly not a SPY clone today. He’s made big bets on META at 14% allocation and BRKB at 9%. Has outperformed over last 1 and 3 year periods ….hoping Danoff doesn’t retire soon

Does this new policy apply to clients enrolled in a 401k at work? My daughter has a Vanguard retirement plan from her employer and she is being kicked out of Wellington and being automatically migrated to a JP Morgan age appropriate TDF unless she opts out. Luckily she still has VPMAX.

Will not bother the Bogleheads. They don’t trade or even look at their statements. Or so they say.
At least some beg to differ. I especially liked this post:

I can’t imagine how many people are calling Vanguard customer service today or will in the next few days.
49 million?

(Vanguard claims 50+ million customers.)

Thanks for the reminder. There were two aspects of Vanguard's announcement that particularly irked me. One was the new closeout/transfer fee (FWIW, Schwab charges $50 vs. Vanguard's $100). The new charge for calling about non-trade-related issues was the other fee that caught my eye.
I'd forgotten that related to the latter was the "don't call too much - or else" clause. I even called Vanguard to confirm that this doesn't apply to people paying for advice (Vanguard Personal Advisor).
One of the people I know using the PAS service received the identical letter from Vanguard that I received. There was no mention about still being able to talk with an advisor w/o a telephone charge, let alone risking getting "fired".
As the article said, Vanguard's communication on changes has been very poor.

"Concentrated portfolio + low turnover can be terrible if the fund owns bad holdings."
Thanks for the insight, Captain Obvious!

"Pearls of wisdom" (at least, he would say). He's a joke.

Whatever happened to Vanguard's old motto - VG customers are its shareholders ? Or, VG is owned by its customers?
https://riabiz.com/a/2024/6/19/vanguard-warns-its-phone-reliant-investors-of-termination-without-warning-or-explanation-under-new-contract-effective-july-1
Bob Berger - X/Twitter

AAII Sentiment Survey, 6/19/24
BULLISH remained the top sentiment (44.4%, above average) & bearish remained the bottom sentiment (22.5%, below average); neutral remained the middle sentiment (33.1%, above average); Bull-Bear Spread was +21.9% (above average). Investor concerns: Elections, budget, inflation, economy, the Fed, dollar, Russia-Ukraine (121+ weeks), Israel-Hamas (36+ weeks), geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks up, bonds up, oil up, gold down, dollar up. Big US stocks: 1-NVDA, 2-MSFT, 3-AAPL. Tech XLK rebalance to require selling billions of AAPL to buy more NVDA. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1522/thread

Primecap started out as a mid cap growth, evolving over time into a large cap that straddled the growth/blend boundary. Core launched as a large cap blend as I recall. It has usually trailed Primecap in performance, as growth has generally led value/blend for many years. I tend to think of Primecap as an AIO, covering both VPCCX and VHCAX.
M*, Primecap: The Shades of Difference Among Its Funds
As you've no doubt noticed, all three funds invest about 1/8 of their portfolio abroad. I happen to like this (bigger pool to fish in), though others prefer to invest strictly domestically.

Is there any ... OEF that has decent volume along those lines?
Why should volume of an OEF matter? Perhaps availability matters, but why volume?
Regarding availability, what that seems to be saying is that S&P 500 funds are a poor person's substitute for less widely available funds that track mega caps.
Edit: Ironically enough, there is an ETF that tracks the S&P 100 with ticker OEF.
XLG tracks the S&P Top 50. It has about 40% of the trading volume (in shares) of DIA, though of course a much lower dollar volume.

Sorry. my volume question was related to ETFs. Actually, AUM probably would be more useful data for both types, come to think of it.
And thx for the reminder - I remember OEF now that you mention it, but never heard of XLG...that looks like a good one!

Is there any ... OEF that has decent volume along those lines?
Why should volume of an OEF matter? Perhaps availability matters, but why volume?
Regarding availability, what that seems to be saying is that S&P 500 funds are a poor person's substitute for less widely available funds that track mega caps.
Edit: Ironically enough, there is an ETF that tracks the S&P 100 with ticker OEF.
XLG tracks the S&P Top 50. It has about 40% of the trading volume (in shares) of DIA, though of course a much lower dollar volume.

Go with the crowd because the crowd makes self-fulfilling decisions? Lots of people buy because prices go up because lots of people buy?
By that reasoning, the S&P 500 (TR) should be outperforming the S&P Top 50 (TR), and yet ...
          500       Top 50
YTD  15.82%  22.62%
1yr    26.33%  34.10%
3yr    11.33%  14.84% (annualized)
5yr    15.35%  18.75% (annualized)
10yr  12.93%  15.11% (annualized)
All figures through June 18, 2024. The last (10yr) is a hypothetical number provided by S&P Global, since the launch date of the Top 50 index was Nov 30, 2015.
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-500-top-50/?currency=USD&returntype=T-#overview

Yes but how many people invest in the Top 50-ish? Is there any ETF or OEF that has decent volume along those lines? I haven't looked, but I doubt it. (BBLU maybe?) Ergo pretty much everyone buys the index b/c that's what their retirement plans offer.
(I prefer more concentrated funds myself, fwiw saying.)

Go with the crowd because the crowd makes self-fulfilling decisions? Lots of people buy because prices go up because lots of people buy?
By that reasoning, the S&P 500 (TR) should be outperforming the S&P Top 50 (TR), and yet ...
          500       Top 50
YTD  15.82%  22.62%
1yr    26.33%  34.10%
3yr    11.33%  14.84% (annualized)
5yr    15.35%  18.75% (annualized)
10yr  12.93%  15.11% (annualized)
All figures through June 18, 2024. The last (10yr) is a hypothetical number provided by S&P Global, since the launch date of the Top 50 index was Nov 30, 2015.
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-500-top-50/?currency=USD&returntype=T-#overview

For me FCNTX had become for all intent and purpose an S&P 500 clone albeit with active management and a higher ER. It currently has 315 holdings. Also I'm not sure how much longer Danoff will remain in charge.
As for BIAWX I invested initially because of the management team, a concentrated focus (currently 33 holdings) and the ESG theme of the fund. To each their own, you do you.

Buying into the S&P 500 seems like buying into megacaps but then adding 300 "smaller" companies for what? Seasoning? Diversification?
If the decision is to go with megacaps, then why bother with that dreck? Or if the decision is to diversify across the market (despite smaller companies having not fared as well as megacaps in the past), consider buying into funds that truly diversify.
MGC has outperformed VFIAX since inception, Jan 2008 (10.50% vs. 10.26%), with slightly lower volatility (16.00% vs. 16.14% std dev), and a 3 year rolling coefficient of correlation ranging between 0.997 and 0.999 (nearly perfect tracking).
Portfolio Visualizer correlation (and performance) analysis of MGC and VFIAX
The divergence between mega caps and the rest of the market has been most apparent in the past five years (give or take). Go with the flow or "revert to the mean"?

VPMAX has been a fine fund since inception but since I was then late to the game I invested in BIAWX to complement FCNTX. Pull up a 10-yr chart. Beat me with a stick if you want but I have since sold FCNTX and put those funds into FXAIX.

My Treasury positions at Schwab and Fidelity matured on June 15 (Saturday). ... Schwab did not show anything last night and added to cash this [Tuesday] AM.
Unlike Fidelity (at least from what other posters here have written), you can trade online at Schwab without having sufficient cash in your account at the time a trade is executed. You just need to get that cash into the account by settlement day (or you are set up to trade on margin).
In hindsight (putting on those 20/20 goggles), you could have placed your MMF order on Monday. It would have settled on Tuesday (today) and the Treasury proceeds would have covered it. The MMF would then have started accruing divs today.

This was in an IRA. I already tried unsuccessfully that idea in that account at the end of May when I had a smaller Treasury mature. Unless there is cash in the account, Schwab does not allow me (or broker assisted) to place a buy order in the IRA.

Have you tried with limited margin? This is not true margin (borrowing), which is forbidden in an IRA, but simply the ability to trade against unsettled cash. Or so I read:

The Limited Margin feature allows for trading on unsettled funds ...
Supported activities

• Use of unsettled funds for trading
• Option spread trading in an IRA

Schwab, Introduction to Limited Margin

Hi @BaluBalu You wrote:

My Treasury positions at Schwab and Fidelity matured on June 15 Fidelity moved the money to sweep account

You're using the term 'sweep account', so this transaction is within a Fido Cash Management Account?? I ask, as a standard Fido brokerage has 'core positions' for cash consisting of a MMKT of one form or another.
Thank you.
Catch

It is the sweep (money market) fund, as you say.
Not every brokerage offers money market funds to act as a sweep bucket. So, I use the general term sweep account rather than the specific sweep fund. If you guys collectively agree to use Sweep Fund rather than Sweep Account, I am happy to sync up. (Whatever makes it easy for you all - I have a high sense of mortality.)

My Treasury positions at Schwab and Fidelity matured on June 15 (Saturday). ... Schwab did not show anything last night and added to cash this [Tuesday] AM.
Unlike Fidelity (at least from what other posters here have written), you can trade online at Schwab without having sufficient cash in your account at the time a trade is executed. You just need to get that cash into the account by settlement day (or you are set up to trade on margin).
In hindsight (putting on those 20/20 goggles), you could have placed your MMF order on Monday. It would have settled on Tuesday (today) and the Treasury proceeds would have covered it. The MMF would then have started accruing divs today.

This was in an IRA. I already tried unsuccessfully that idea in that account at the end of May when I had a smaller Treasury mature. Unless there is cash in the account, Schwab does not allow me (or broker assisted) to place a buy order in the IRA. We already had a lengthy discussion about this in this forum, may be with @Catch22 (you can search).
My Schwab taxable account is 100% equity, with a mutual fund (happens to be MM) balance of $37.79.
I have another small Treasury maturing on July 15 (thankfully, a Monday). At that time, I will be done with Treasuries (or Agencies) at Schwab. I will just sell some longer term positions at Fidelity and buy the same at Schwab, that way I minimize the cash frictions at Schwab. I will continue to buy Treasuries (and Agencies) only at Fidelity.

Hi @BaluBalu You wrote:

My Treasury positions at Schwab and Fidelity matured on June 15 Fidelity moved the money to sweep account

You're using the term 'sweep account', so this transaction is within a Fido Cash Management Account?? I ask, as a standard Fido brokerage has 'core positions' for cash consisting of a MMKT of one form or another.
Thank you.
Catch

My Treasury positions at Schwab and Fidelity matured on June 15 (Saturday). ... Schwab did not show anything last night and added to cash this [Tuesday] AM.
Unlike Fidelity (at least from what other posters here have written), you can trade online at Schwab without having sufficient cash in your account at the time a trade is executed. You just need to get that cash into the account by settlement day (or you are set up to trade on margin).
In hindsight (putting on those 20/20 goggles), you could have placed your MMF order on Monday. It would have settled on Tuesday (today) and the Treasury proceeds would have covered it. The MMF would then have started accruing divs today.