A couple of dividends showed up on 31 May. One was the domestic Postal REIT. PSTL. As instructed, TRP reinvested the dividend to buy more shares. Smooth and transparent.
On the NHYDY dividend, I'm left to worry and guess at what they did. NHYDY = Norsk Hydro ADR. First thing I see is the amount of the dividend. $145.56. NEXT, I see the FIVE PERCENT fee that was taken from that amount: $7.28. (foreign company.) Then I looked to confirm that the remainder of $138.28 was reinvested. But only $101.89 was reinvested. Where did these doinks hide or lose or steal the rest of it? $36.39 is just plain missing.
This licks pus, I tell you.

... I just invest based on what has worked recently.

What are your momentum (or other) criteria for reckoning a turn ?

Several past posts:
1) "MSF describes it—blend—a blue chip stock with its heady growth days in the past.
"Agree with msf and Lewis assessment. The fast growing business (iPhones, computers, music, and AppleTV) since Steve Jobs's returned has plateaued. In some area Apple is trailing."
2) "Growth is about revenues, cash flow and earnings versus the benchmark and industry peers and it’s forward looking, not from five or ten years ago."
FD: Reality check, after close to 3 years, Apple proved to be MORE THAN JUST A BLEND BLUE CHIP
One year performance......AAPL +12.3....VFINX -6.6%......JPM -23.7%
Three year performance...AAPL +49.65...VFINX +14.9%...JPM +6.1%
In just 3 years AAPL made 174% more than VFINX(SP500)....221.8 vs 47.8%...see (chart)

Checking again, several posters claimed that Apple is just another blue chip + its heady growth days in the past.
Apple still beat SPY for 1,3,5,10,15 years. See the chart for one year (https://schrts.co/FgWjnDmE) Apple made 4+ times more.

Morningstar's gutted portfolio list (it now shows only the top 10 holdings) shows that nine of the top 10 holdings made money over the past 12 months with eight posting double-digit gains.
Given a sideways comment in the manager's latest update and the strong equity performance (at last in the largest holdings), it appears that they dramatically screwed up their options position, anticipating a sharp collapse and seeing, instead strong gains.

If Vanguard hires a single subadvisor for, say, 0.50%, and that subadvisor has its own branded funds that it charges 1% for, what is the motivation for investors to buy any of the subadvisor's higher-cost branded funds? A single sub-advisor Vanguard fund runs the risk of cannibalizing that sub-advisor's external business. ...
Wellington and Primecap are interesting exceptions, but then Primecap only opened its branded funds when Vanguard closed its Primecap subadvised ones to new investors, so there was less risk of cannibalization. Meanwhile, Wellington has been with Vanguard since its founding, and the relationship there is a unique and enduring one.

Does Wellington have its own branded funds? It doesn't seem to fit this pattern.
Primecap (VPMCX) opened and closed at various times. If Primecap was waiting until the Vanguard funds closed, it looks like the third time was the charm.
In 1994, its minimum was $3,000 (or $10,000; the prospectus is gives both figures). March 7, 1995, Vanguard closed the fund and limited additional investments to $25K/year. On Jan 1, 1996, Vanguard unambiguously reduced the minimum to $3K, were fund were to reopen. On Oct 31, 1996, the fund did reopen. The fund was closed again on April 22, 1998, with a $25K/year limit on additional investments. On April 23, 2001, the fund once again reopened, but this time with a $25K minimum and a 1% redemption fee for shares redeemed within five years of purchase. Finally, several months after Vanguard closed the fund again on March 4, 2004, Primecap Odyssey launched its funds in November 2004.
The initial management fee of 0.60% was slightly higher than the Vanguard management fee at the time of 0.48%. Though counterbalancing that relatively slight difference was the five year redemption fee that Vanguard imposed and Primecap Odyssey did not.
An exception that may prove the rule is Vanguard Global Environmental Opportunities Fund (VEOIX). It began Nov 22, 2022, a bit more than a year after the management firm, Ninety One, started it own fund, Global Environment Fund ZGEIX.
Yogi may be right about a new company looking to grow AUM, even if it has to give up 20 basis points in fees. Though if that were its objective, Vanguard hasn't been too successful at that. Each fund has only about $40M AUM, and looking at the Vanguard fund, half of its AUM came at launch (seed money?).

I noticed Vanguard is also projecting better returns from unhedged 'Ex-U.S. Developed' equities over the next decade ( https://www.morningstar.com/markets/markets-brief-why-vanguard-sees-brighter-outlook-investors-portfolios).

Fund Allocations (Cumulative), 04/30/23
There were tiny increases in stock allocations. The changes for OEFs + ETFs were based on a total AUM of about $30.29 trillion in the previous month, so +/- 1% change was about +/- $302.9 billion. Also note that these changes were from both fund inflows/outflows & price changes. #Funds #OEFs #ETFs #ICI
OEFs & ETFs: Stocks 57.99%, Hybrids 5.10%, Bonds 19.71%, M-Mkt 17.20%
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1049/thread

I believe CCOR has been mentioned by Lynn Bolin in his articles about conservative funds for declining markets. I followed it but never bought it despite its solid record until 2023. It holds large dividend payers while writing options on equity indices to temper volatility. VIG, by way of comparison, is up about 1.7% YTD. May be that dividend heavy funds are not keeping up with overall market.

It had a good reputation on the board based on discussions going back over a year. I did have a small holding for a while in mid-2022. While I don’t understand this stuff completely, I know it sells puts as a defensive tactic which are supposed to rise as equity markets fall. Held up well in 2020 when markets swooned. Seems to have gone “kaput” this time around.
One simple theory might be that the type of conservative investors who buy a fund like this (or the defensive holdings it uses) have sold in large quantities and simply moved into cash and CDs with short term rates as high as they are. My guess is it will bounce back. Wish I had some extra dough to throw at it.

@WABAC: thanks for your reply. During the relatively short time I have been invested in or following the Cambria funds (in my case SYLD, EYLD, and FYLD) I am struck by the streakiness of their performance. SYLD is hurting this year (down 6+%) after very good years in 21 and 22. I agree that Faber’s approach should produce results, but it does appear that one needs to be patient. Value is not in favor in 23.

I believe CCOR has been mentioned by Lynn Bolin in his articles about conservative funds for declining markets. I followed it but never bought it despite its solid record until 2023. It holds large dividend payers while writing options on equity indices to temper volatility. VIG, by way of comparison, is up about 1.7% YTD. May be that dividend heavy funds are not keeping up with overall market.

That is not a fund that has ever turned up in any of my screens/searches.
Closest thing I own is DIVO. That's up about 1.0 YTD. IHDG is positive. All of my other dividend funds, like SCHD, are in the red. PEY is off 12.92

Just curious. Don’t own. Off near 11% YTD (Morningstar data). From what I can tell it’s never had a losing year since inception (2017). I read dividend payers were having an off year, which partially explains it. But, Price’s PRFDX (invests in dividend paying stocks) is only down 2 or 3%. CCOR hedges against stock market risk. Right? But S&P inverse (SPDN) appears to have lost only half as much.

I recall 2011’s downgrade, not even defaulting, brought down the market. This time won’t be easy to get both sides to come together.
Last time, gold shot up and stay there until the debt ceiling resolved.

Sven
June 2021 Flag
Every Memorial Day I watch most of the movie “Bands of Brothers” to commemorate my grandfather who served in WWII. He seldom talked about his experience as many of his friends did not return.
Least we not forget those that gave all , an arm or leg.
I was surprised of the lack of Memorial Day remembrance post.
I hope you enjoyed your day.

Yogibearbull largely has the subadvisor model correct here. If Vanguard hires a single subadvisor for, say, 0.50%, and that subadvisor has its own branded funds that it charges 1% for, what is the motivation for investors to buy any of the subadvisor's higher-cost branded funds? A single sub-advisor Vanguard fund runs the risk of cannibalizing that sub-advisor's external business. But a multi-advisor fund will be different and therefore there is less risk of cannibalization. Vanguard can play the subs off against each other on cost. Wellington and Primecap are interesting exceptions, but then Primecap only opened its branded funds when Vanguard closed its Primecap subadvised ones to new investors, so there was less risk of cannibalization. Meanwhile, Wellington has been with Vanguard since its founding, and the relationship there is a unique and enduring one. Wellington originally fired John Bogle, motivating him to found Vanguard.

A fund's board is responsible for hiring the fund's advisor(s). It may be a distinction without a difference, but at Harbor, a board hires the fund's advisor, which in turn hires the subadvisors. In contrast, at Vanguard a board hires multiple advisors directly. There are no subs.

Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc. (“Harbor Capital” or the “Advisor”) is the investment adviser to Harbor Funds. ...
The Advisor may manage funds directly or employ a “manager-of-managers” approach in selecting and overseeing investment subadvisers (each, a “Subadvisor”). The Advisor makes day-to-day investment decisions with respect to each fund that it directly manages. In the case of subadvised funds, the Advisor evaluates and allocates each Harbor fund’s assets to one or more Subadvisors. For Harbor funds that employ one or more discretionary subadvisors, the Subadvisors are responsible for the day-to-day management of the assets of the Harbor funds allocated to them.

Harbor Prospectus

For funds that are advised by independent third-party advisory firms unaffiliated with Vanguard, the board of trustees of each fund hires investment advisory firms, not individual portfolio managers, ...
... the [third-party] advisor manages the investment and reinvestment of the portion of the fund’s assets that the fund’s board of trustees determines to assign to the advisor. In this capacity, each advisor continuously reviews, supervises, and administers the fund’s investment program for its portion of the fund’s assets. ... Each advisor discharges its responsibilities subject to the supervision and oversight of Vanguard’s Portfolio Review Department and the officers and trustees of the fund. Vanguard’s Portfolio Review Department is responsible for recommending changes in a fund’s advisory arrangements to the fund’s board of trustees, including changes in the amount of assets allocated to each advisor and recommendations to hire, terminate, or replace an advisor.

Vanguard® World Fund SAI (including U.S. Growth and some other funds)

Are these rumors reliable? The other question, can we compare 2023 vs. 2011?

There are rumors on Twitter that Fitch may go ahead with the US downgrade, deal or no-deal.
S&P did that AFTER the resolution of debt-crisis in 2011 & suffered mightily for it - McGraw Hill is now pvt shadow of the former self after spinning off $SPGI.
Pvt Fitch (owned by pvt Hearst) won't be spared if it repeats the history by downgrading the US AFTER the debt-deal.

Many of these funds are widely used in 401(k) and 403(b) plan, especially the institutional shares with low ERs. We have the fortune to use many of them and done quite well.

Sorry if this was already posted.
5/26/2023 filing:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/52848/000168386323004869/f25599d0.htm
From Vanguard:
https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/who-we-are/pressroom/press-release-vanguard-announces-advisory-changes-for-two-equity-funds-052623.html