Kilbride may be around 60 - not that old. He has high positions at Wellington Management (WM) - Partner, Managing Director (MD), portfolio manager. Vanguard has setup a smaller, similar and more concentrated fund for him - VADGX, AUM $318.1 million, ER 0.45%, only 28 holdings (vs 41 for VDIGX), inception 11/9/21. It's advisor-only fund and Schwab shows as NA and it isn't part of Fido NTF (so, no competition with VDIGX). It seems to me that Kilbride will be around Wellington Management handling VADGX, helping Fisher, and may be other even higher things at WM. It doesn't look like he is moving into a retirement community.

Look at Fido experience that has active ETF cousins for several of its famous funds (stock & bond). So, FMAG (ER 0.59%), the ETF cousin of storied FMAGX (note ticker similarity), has only $42 million since 2/2/21 inception.
Most of the ETF trading is among traders without involving the ETF. Only when there are significant AUM changes, the authorized participants step in with the creation/redemption mechanism. Of course, there are tax advantages with ETFs - no/low CG annual distributions.

Regarding Giroux's ability to pick stocks, the following was part of the recent annual report dated 12/31/2022.
"In addition, our equities outperformed the S&P500 by 167 basis points (-16.44% versus -18.11%) in 2022. Over the last 3-, 5-, and10-year periods, our equities outperformed the S&P500 by an average of 267, 368, and 405 basis points annualized, respectively. While our equities have substantially outperformed the market, our equities have also been less risky (from a beta perspective) than the market."

A dividend from USAA would have been the right thing to have done for its members so I don't fault Schwab
The right thing to have done, as with any sale, was to have compensated the owners for the sale. USAA's members were customers receiving services. They were not owners merely because they were members.

Use of the term "member" or "membership" refers to membership in USAA Membership Services and does not convey any legal or ownership rights in USAA.

https://www.usaa.com/inet/wc/about_usaa_corporate_overview_main
However, USAA is a mutual company (not to be confused with a mutual fund) owned via Subscriber Savings Accounts. (This is similar to the way Vanguard customers own The Vanguard Group via investments in Vanguard funds.) It appears that members automatically get a Subscriber Account and via this account become owners of USAA.
http://www.savermetrics.com/2022/10/25/usaa-subscribers-savings-account-distribution-explained/
As suggested on The Military Wallet Site, owners (i.e. those with a Subscriber Account) would get some cash out of the sale:

All USAA members benefit from the sales to Victory and Schwab. By the end of 2020, USAA will have a new focus on insurance and banking– without trying to handle an investment branch. There might even be a little extra distribution in the Subscriber Accounts.

https://themilitarywallet.com/usaa-subscriber-savings-account-insurance-policy/
It looks like there was "a little extra distribution" to Subscriber Account holders, at least according to this member:

We receive two bonus checks annually as part of this relationship [with USAA].
The first for $412 was the annual distribution (dividend) from the Subscriber’s Account, a portion of the capital base for this mutual insurance company. USAA stated that the amount was partly from the sale of their asset management company as well as from their overall net income.

https://chipfilson.com/2020/01/remembering-long-time-members/
had I allowed Schwab to take custody of my accounts I would have had to liquidate my positions at USAA
Why would you have had to liquidate? Was Schwab requiring everyone to liquidate all positions, or just positions it couldn't hold. If it was the latter, are you now facing the same prospect - that your positions can be held by TDA but not by Schwab?

+1.

I would like to consider going somewhere other than Schwab... hopefully with a transfer bonus and the ability to move assets "in kind".
When Schwab bought out USAA members (I being one) I was under the hopeful impression USAA accounts holders were to be partial recipient of this buyout ($1.8 B). We (as owners of these accounts) were not. USAA pocketed millions while members were told that this windfall would help enrich USAA member experience. A dividend from USAA would have been the right thing to have done for its members so I don't fault Schwab. I just felt like a pawn in this buyout. In addition, had I allowed Schwab to take custody of my accounts I would have had to liquidate my positions at USAA (to cash) which was not appealing to me. I decided to shop my account.
Merrill Edge was my first stop. I transferred funds "in kind"...collect my bonus. A year later I moved assets to TD Ameritrade "in kind" and received another bonus.
Schwab! got me again. TD Ameritrade was bought out by... Schwab!
It was a little bit of a part time job moving the account from USAA to Merrill to TD Ameritrade, but it was thousands of dollars for my efforts. Transfer bonuses were tax free since this was a Roth account.
Looks like I have until May to find a new brokerage for this TD Ameritrade account.
Here's one from Merrill I will look into:
merrill-edge-promotions
List of other Bonus Offers:
best-brokerage-bonuses/

While I wish you could buy VMFXX at Schwab or Fido, the inconvenience and nuisances at Vanguard IMHO do not make up the difference. For $50,000 I am loosing $50 to put up with Vanguard
I don't have $1,000,000 to put into cash which is the minimum for institutional funds at least at Schwab and Fidelity I think.
Never looked at Merrill online.
@msf Is it worth looking at?
I have tried not to leave much in MMF recently, as T bills and CDs pay better and are a little bit more secure

When rates were effectively zero, fund sponsors subsidized their funds so that they all yielded 0.01%.
SWVXX 7 day yield w/waivers: 4.49%: w/o waivers: 4.48% (as of 3/22/23)
https://www.schwabassetmanagement.com/products/swvxx
E/R (after waiver); 0.34%
E/R (w/o waiver): 0.35%
Summary prospectus
If one is willing to trade convenience for small improvements in yield (which can make sense for larger piles of cash), instead of VMFXX (0.11% ER, 4.55% yield, gov fund), one might use VUSXX (0.09% ER, 4.59% yield, pure treasury).
For Fidelity MMFs (again, sacrificing convenience for return) one might use FSIXX (0.21% ER, 0.18% w/waivers; 4.48% w/waivers; pure treasury), available with a $1K min at Merrill.
https://olui2.fs.ml.com/Publish/Content/application/pdf/GWMOL/ICCRateSheet.pdf

Not sure why I didn't pay attention to this before, but I never bothered to look at the expense ratio of the Schwab MM fund, SWVXX. It's 0.34%. The 7day yield given is 4.49% but with an added stipulation, 7 day yield with waivers. So, is the actual "net yield " actually 4.49-0.34 = 4.15% after expenses? Or, is the expense ratio known as "waivers"?
I'm assuming the Fidelity MM fund has the same connotation, with waivers(?)
Which now has me thinking, a couple years ago when rates were measured in fractions of a percent, 0.1, 0.2% yield, were we actually losing money being in this fund?

There is a filing for several active Price ETFs, including TCAF (although 80%+ equity; ER 0.31% only) to be managed by Giroux (PRWCX). Filing also includes several other active ETFs.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1795351/000174177323000901/c485bpos.htm

@Devo,
I think the question has been answered above. I own FPA Queens Road Small Cap Value Fund I class since I owned its predecessor FPA Capital Fund. My broker has asked if I wanted to transfer my FPA account to them. I still keep the fund with FPA transfer agent since my history shows I was a FPA Capital investor despite not having $100K invested in the fund. Also, a brokerage may impose a restriction on my account (not verified as it may vary from brokerage to brokerage) since I do not have the $100K as required for the I class shares as well as should the fund close again, the brokerage may not allow additional investments.
You need to check with your broker on their requirements.

It depends on a lot of things. I've transferred a few funds that one could not (at the time) open at a brokerage.
Most recently, I transferred some Vanguard admiral class shares to Merrill (for a bonus and to maintain a balance for higher credit card rebates). One cannot open new admiral share accounts there for most Vanguard funds.
I was told that I could not transfer Fidelity funds there - at least the funds I asked about. (Though they offer institutional share classes of several Fidelity MM funds with a $1K min.) But other brokerages can hold Fidelity funds, e.g. Schwab.
I have a legacy Franklin (from Legg Mason, from Citi, from Salamon Bros.) fund. The original share class, which became institutional (at Salamon) now has a $1M min. Multiple brokerages told me they could accept the transfer from Legg Mason. But Legg Mason refused to transfer any account unless it met the share class min. (Though it would transfer a smaller amount to a charity.)
Franklin was more agreeable, and I've transferred the holding. At the time of the transfer, I was told by the brokerage that they could hold (and sell) the shares but I would not be able to buy more shares. I just checked and the system appears to let me place a buy order. Things change.
I purchased a Columbia fund that was closed except for direct investment. The prospectus clearly stated that new accounts could not be transferred to a brokerage for six(?) months. After that holding period, transfers were allowed.
So the ability to transfer can depend on where to, where from, and when. The ability to add to the account may depend on the particular brokerage and possibly the fund rules as well. The best answer is to ask before opening the account.

There is a filing for several active Price ETFs, including TCAF (although 80%+ equity; ER 0.31% only) to be managed by Giroux (PRWCX). Filing also includes several other active ETFs.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1795351/000174177323000901/c485bpos.htm

A reason to buy bank stocks: K. O'Leary won't touch them.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/never-put-money-bank-stock-110000539.html

Trend is UP for global rates, TwitterLINK.

Multiply you guys x 10 to the umpteenth and you got Silicon Valley Bank.

Yup, that's what happened.

I’ve played around a bit with CCOR over the past year or two. Small amounts. Currently out. From what I’ve read it buys / sells deep in the money options with about 10% of assets and so provides a strong hedge on big down days. For whatever reason, that wasn’t the case today, as it fell 0.72% . A guess is that the speed and suddenness with which the markets turned upside down prevented it from working its magic. I still think it’s a good defensive fund - but one needs to find the right role for it inside a diverse portfolio.
Re: CCOR - ”Options are then used to control portfolio volatility and to maintain cash flows. As a hedge, the fund may sell S&P 500 calls to finance the purchase of S&P 500 puts. This strategy may cause the fund to give up some upside potential in exchange for downside protection. Managers may utilize other option strategies like spreads for hedging and income generation as well.” - Source

Email from T Rowe Price concerning the reopening:
View in browser
T. Rowe Price Log in to your account T. Rowe Price
Dear Investor,
Fund Name Ticker CUSIP
T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Stock Fund – Investor Class PRMSX 77956H864
T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Stock Fund – I Class PRZIX 77956H484
T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Equity Fund IEMFX 74144Q203
T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund – Investor Class PRNHX 779562107
T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund – I Class PRJIX 779562206
We are writing to inform you that effective April 26, 2023, we are removing the purchase restrictions on the Emerging Markets Stock Fund, Institutional Emerging Markets Equity Fund, and New Horizons Fund.
These funds have been restricted to all investors due to capacity constraints. At that time, we were concerned that continued significant cash inflows would overwhelm the portfolio manager’s ability to invest prudently. This change now allows investors who trade directly with T. Rowe Price to open new accounts in the funds.
Since that time, market conditions have changed, and overall assets under management have decreased. Following a thorough review of net flows and other factors related to the potential capacity of the strategy, we believe we can accommodate controlled asset growth over time.
Thank you for your continued business and partnership with T. Rowe Price. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to reach out to us.
Download a prospectus for the T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Stock Fund, the T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Equity Fund and the T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund.
All funds are subject to market risk, including the potential loss of principal.
This communication does not undertake to give investment advice in a fiduciary capacity. T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., and/or its affiliates receive revenue from T. Rowe Price investment products and services.
This email may be considered advertising under federal law.
T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc.

Unless you bought at the peak of CCOR's performance late last year as David described, it has proven generally more defensive than DSTL, up 2.5% in 2022 overall while DSTL was down 10.6%. Yet no question, CCOR is struggling this year. But these two funds seem quite different in their strategies.