I was surprised to find out that Vanguard participates in while Fidelity and Merrill do not participate in payment for order flows.
[and]
To be consistent with Fidelity and Schwab, did Vanguard stop charging commission on sale of transaction fees mutual funds?

Picking up on these questions ...
Both Vanguard and Fidelity claim they receive no PFOF. However, in Fidelity's case, that applies only to equity trades and not to options trades. With respect to Vanguard, its latest Sec 606 filings (3Q 2021) show it is currently taking no PFOF even for options.
From the NYTimes, Nov. 29, 2019: "The practice, known as “payment for order flow,” is widespread among online brokerage firms. (Fidelity and Vanguard say they do not accept such payments.)"
Vanguard's latest (3Q 2021) Sec 606 filings (no payments received):
https://nms606.karngroup.com/vgrd/606a/2021Q3/588e3c62ff
Fidelity's latest (3Q 2021) Sec 606 filings (including payments received and/or made):
https://clearingcustody.fidelity.com/app/literature/item/9904530.html
From S&P Global Market Intelligence, Oct 22, 2019: Schwab CEO: Fidelity's payment for order flow claims not 'the whole story'
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/a-new-dawn-for-european-bank-ma-top-5-trends
There are a number of pieces saying that Fidelity doesn't charge PFOF, while Vanguard does. For example, this Business Insider column from last March says that Vanguard receives PFOF while Fidelity does not. But when one checks the 606 reports (3Q2020) that it links to, Vanguard received payments only on option orders, and the Fidelity report likewise shows Fidelity receiving payment for options orders.
With respect to Merrill, it routes all its orders to BofA Securities. Just as problematic as PFOF. The problem with PFOF is that orders get routed on a basis other than best execution. The problem with routing to your own company is that the routing is on a basis other than best execution.
Merrill's SEC 606 filings (zip files): http://public.s3.com/rule606/mlco_gwim/
Regarding one way transaction fees: AFAIK, only Fidelity and Schwab charge one way fees. Vanguard charges lower two way fees (i.e. to both buy and sell TF funds), and does not jack up that fee on Fidelity funds (unlike Schwab) or on Schwab funds (unlike Fidelity).
Like Fidelity, Vanguard enables one to buy additional shares of a TF fund for a few bucks by using its automated investing system. Fidelity charges $5 per purchase (can cancel after one purchase); Vanguard charges $3 per "dollar-cost averaging" purchase but requires two purchases. Schwab does not offer reduced rates; it charges $49.95 or $75 for each TF purchase.
Three different pricing structures. For my investing pattern, Fidelity works best. YMMV.

I am seriously considering moving some if not all of my position in TMSRX to PMEFX.

FYI, co-manager Mark Saylor left the fund in October. Apparently, the fund is only available directly from Penn Mutual.
Fred

It’s available at Schwab with a TF.

Markets appear in disarray as of late . As of midnight the Dow was ahead by 1 point. Interest rates appear to have pulled back slightly, the 10 year at 1.76%. Precious metals firmed today. Of course, markets set rates farther out - not the Fed. Agree that markets are reacting to the Fed. Being of the bearish camp, I’m inclined to view any market action at the moment as superfluous. “It’s all a show kid …” as Billy Flynn intones in Chicago.
Yes, dippers please do your thing!

Think there is more to unfold in next several weeks. Ten year treasury yield is moving up since the beginning of the year and the bond prices are falling. The 10 year treasury rate jumped sharply from 1.512% on 12/30/21 to 1.780% as of today.
The Fed has not even officially raising the rates yet.

“Cash is negative 7% due to inflation”
I haven’t heard that one before. He’s right, of course. But what also needs be assessed in valuing cash as part of an investment approach is that over shorter periods cash may represent opportunity. That value is harder to assess. Goes beyond simply looking at current inflation numbers.
Using his logic… If (1) your equity portfolio declines in nominal value by 25% over 1 year and (2) your cash level remains steady over that same year and (3) inflation advances by 7% over the year, than ISTM you end up this way on an inflation adjusted basis.
Purchasing power after 1 year:
Cash = 93% of starting value
Equity portfolio = 68% of starting value
I don’t know what the official inflation rate was between September 2007 and March 2009. But I’ll tell you cash was worth a whole lot more at the start of that 18 month stretch than equities were and maintained its purchasing power much better.

Agreed that putting too much emphasis on tax efficiency can negatively impact the PM ability to generated above avg./high returns. That was not my intent to convey.
Mr. Hwan stated his goal is to reduce turnover between 30% to 40%, among other volatility reducing measures.
In fact, I did state that I was concerned what impact these process changes will have on returns.
I too am a firm believer in TR, but very high tax consequences can have a significant impact on after-tax returns and make an otherwise excellent fund, mediocre or inefficient in a taxable account.
Unfortunately (i guess) for me, 75% of my retail investments (ex. IRA's, 401K) are in a taxable account, so I believe I have to, at least, consider tax consequences, not necessarily make decisions solely based on it, but it is one factor.
As far as ETFs, they don't serve my purpose in this area. I do not want a index tracker, I much prefer an investment that deviates from its bogie. From what I read PARWX/PFPWX has an active ratio of about 90%, not bad.
Any further thoughts, ideas, suggestions or opinion are very welcome!!!
Matt

MGGPX/MGGIX will likely show a massive bloodbath today, based on the M* reporting of its holdings' prices as of 1045ET. Many large-percentage drops at the moment.
I wonder if it's too early to pre-emptively harvest some losses for my 2022 taxes. :)

Value funds such as Oakmark lagged S&P 500 index which dominated by FAANG stocks for awhile. It is more appropriate to compare them using the appropriate benchmark, VG Value index as you noted. Will see how this plays out this year with rising interest rates which do not favor tech stocks.

Here's link to chart deck.
And here's link to video recording.
If I can help in any way, please reach back: [email protected]. Or, just post here.
c

OAKMX and OAKLX did not beat SPY during the last 10 years, but since inception of OAKLX in 1996, it is up 1780%, whereas SPY is 936% up, and VTV (Vanguard Value) is 761%. Thus OAKLX significantly outperformed both S&P 500 and Value index since inception. I would not necessarily bet my house on its future outperformance, but I take Nygren's opinions seriously.

Observant1 said, "I wonder if the recent trend of value outperforming growth will persist?
A very good question in deed ! Value started rolling about 15-16 months ago. It also went side ways for awhile before holding up better than growth last week , maybe sooner.
Think I will start a position ,VMVAX in taxable account on Monday. I will also admitted I held VVIAX , & sold early. Pigs make money- hogs get slaughtered !
Growth maybe a bit over bought ?, Derf

Some ETFs in this space are down 50% and OEFs are down 20%.

Please note ARTYX invests heavily into Developed market stocks and is at 50% now in Developed market stocks. Their theory may be that those stocks earn significant amount of their earnings from EM countries.
I invested in it a month from inception and continued until 2018. After selling the amount I invested in mid 2021, I am still left with 174% of what I initially invested.
Very high beta fund, but I have immense patience, and will use volatility to my advantage whenever it severely corrects. It also covers the LG portion Developed countries, something on the lines of VWIGX.

This will be a very challenging year for fixed income.
The Fed will end QE and probably raise short-term rates three or four times.
It now appears that the Fed will also reduce its balance sheet.
There will be increased volatility in the equity markets.
Using the S&P 500 as a proxy for the US market, the largest drawdown
was just 5.2% while the worst down day was only 2.6% in 2021.
Despite this, the S&P 500 returned over 28% last calendar year!
I don't expect this type of performance (low vol, high return) in 2022.
It wouldn't be surprising if we experienced several corrections during the year.
I wonder if the recent trend of value outperforming growth will persist?
If one believes in reversion to the mean, value is "overdue."

how does one use that information?

That's an excellent question. Regardless of the quality of the data, how does a retail investor make use of an IIV? Only an authorized participant (AP) can trade on the difference between the actual NAV (or IIV) and the ETF market price. Retail investors can only trade on the current market price.
Say that the market is rising rapidly, and in anticipation traders are bidding up an ETF's price even more quickly. So the ETF is priced at a small premium. As a retail investor interested in buying the ETF, are you going to hold off until that premium vanishes (assuming you're even looking at the IIV)? Or are you going to buy the ETF now before the price shoots up some more?
What is a possible scenario where a retail investor changes a buy/sell decision for an ETF based on its IIV? If it makes a difference, assume whatever you need about how current the IIV figure is.
ISTM that only APs care about the actual value of an ETF portfolio as opposed to what an ETF is selling for on the open market. That's so they can arbitrage the difference. For them, 15 seconds isn't good enough - they run their own internal calculations.

“We expect equity investors to perform well relative to bond investors over the next decade. We also believe that our portfolios are more attractively priced than the S&P 500.”
Hard to disagree as worded. “our portfolios” doesn’t mean the same as what you, I, or somebody else may own. And they seem to disavow the S&P. Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait 10 years to see if the manager’s perceptions re his portfolio are accurate.
Note that the blurb does not differentiate among bonds, lumping all into one hopper. Well, now, there are short, intermediate and long term bonds. Corporate and sovereign. Investment grade and poorer quality. U.S. domiciled and those from other nations. And, there’s EM as well.
I think for many of us the past week is a great opportunity to compare how different asset class we held faired compared to one another. It hasn’t been too often that so many different assets suffered together (Maybe Qtr 1, 2020?).
When all is said and done, I’m glad I had exposure to bonds last week. RPGAX (30% bonds) fell 1.48% as compared to PRWCX which lost over 2.0%%. My worst performing bond fund, DODIX, fell 1.07%. In contrast, my worst performing equity holding, WPM, fell over 10%. Equity funds themselves were all over the place of course. Those heavy into banks saw gains. Similar variance existed among various alts, long shorts, etc. PRPFX surprised, losing just 1% for the week, despite exposure to gold, bonds and growth stocks.
So, if you have a 10 year or longer time horizon and can live with higher volatility, send your $$ to the folks at Oakmark. BTW - I read a lot of Dodge & Cox’s commentary. They might well have written the same blurb.

Thanks! This statement (or 2) were informative. But also concerning that he sees investing as stocks or bonds not stocks and bonds.
“ How do you assess today’s investment opportunity?
We aren’t market timers, so I have no idea what 2022 returns will look like. But the further out we look, the more returns are based on fundamentals, and the more confident we are in our opinions. We believe that stocks are much more reasonably priced than bonds. The S&P 500 has a dividend yield that matches a 10-year government bond, and unlike a bond, its dividends and earnings are expected to grow. We expect equity investors to perform well relative to bond investors over the next decade. We also believe that our portfolios are more attractively priced than the S&P 500. We don’t own the concept stocks that the financial media spends so much time covering. Most of our portfolios are traditional businesses that have below-average P/E ratios.
One of the best investment strategies over the past decade has been to buy exciting businesses, regardless of price. It isn’t sustainable, in our opinion, and has resulted in an unusually large price gap between growth stocks and low P/E stocks. We believe that a reversal of that performance is warranted and is likely. We are well positioned for a return to normal.
And I have some rocks in my yard that are worth between $0 and $500,000 that I would happily sell for the bargain price of just $50,000!

What happened was that investors sold retail fund holdings and purchased institutional fund holdings. Such a move would have been a taxable event had it been done in taxable accounts, but employer plans (e.g. 401(k)s, 403(b)s) are tax sheltered.
If someone had between $5M and $100M in a taxable retail TDF, it is unlikely that one would have sold shares (recognizing personal cap gains earlier in 2021, before distributions). The cost of the taxes on the realized gain would likely have outweighed the benefit of switching to a lower ER fund.
(I personally faced a similar decision years ago. I owned service class shares of a fund. The A shares, with a slightly lower ER, were subsequently offered load-waived. The fund declined to do a tax-free exchange for me. So I continued to hold the higher cost service class shares.)
Investors weren't selling off shares because they wanted out. They were just moving to a lower ER replacement fund. So whether retail or institutional series had higher unrealized gains seems somewhat moot. That said, I agree that the younger institutional series was likely to have had lower unrealized gains.
Since Vanguard decided to merge the series entirely, there wouldn't seem to be much point in merging the employer plan investors and then months later merging the rest of the investors. Had Vanguard given this enough thought to realize that the first change (lowering the institutional min) would trigger the mass migration, it could have skipped that step completely and merged everyone at once.

@mcmarasco thanks for the comment. There is a thread called Parnassus Endeavor Fund where I posted as well. Both threads are applicable. But as I’m viewing Value as important for my 2022 strategy.. I’m interested in feedback on this fund. Here’s my post there. I’ve been very happy with the 2021 performance. I just want to know why MFO is rating the fund so low for 1 year. I hold this in tax deferred so taxes don’t come into play for me.
January 5 edited January 5
Purchased some PARWX LY and have been happy with it. It was up 31 percent in 2021. Up 4.7 to peers, low Ulcer, good Martin and Sharpe…
Wondering why it’s a MFO 3 Rating for 1 yr. I think I may need a re-education on ratings. Can anyone shed some light? Referring to 1 yr rating on this fund as all other periods are 5 rating. TIA.
Edit/Add: Is it an overriding category issue?

I get that you guys are trying to be intellectually precise but how does one use that information? 15 seconds is real time enough for NAV for me. I make so many poor choices in a day that have nothing to do with stale data, I am not sure having more current information on NAV would improve my yearly portfolio performance. E.g., it takes me more than 15 seconds to put a trade through Vanguard brokerage.