Unfortunately, Grantham has been wrong for over 10 years. But he is not alone, Arnott (PAUIX) and Hussman were too.
See one source(link)
He was so off on US LC(SP500) and EM stocks.

I have read Jeremy Grantham's stuff for years and have also read all of the analysis of his so far, far from perfect track record. He does have good data and arguments, and I thought I couldn't learn anything new from him.
However, this analysis of his of the macro and political issues in the markets today is fascinating and worth hearing. He also has a very perceptive comparison between 1929 1972 2008 and now.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2xH5m4fGf4G2bsnrqXSShd

Having just spent 1.5 hrs on the phone with Vanguard (a hefty percentage of that on hold), I really do appreciate and share people's frustrations with its customer service. That is still a matter distinct from the website or the ease of fund investing there.
The matter I was trying to resolve originated with limitations of a worse financial institution (really!) and I was exploring workarounds that Vanguard could provide. That turned out to be unfortunately little.

I am interested also in the nonmonetary 'multiplier effects', retrospective reimagining of other outcomes and projected paths for current policy decisions:
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20210810&instance_id=37566&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=65854&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/2ec0aedf-343d-5cee-8f35-687fb996a3fa&user_id=83d45440ead1d14c2a89a1e7221337d1

Not part of the infrastructure vote:

Democrats did not include an increase in the federal debt limit, which will have to be passed soon after Congress returns to work next month, along with a stop-gap spending bill to keep the government open after the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. That means an increase in the debt limit would not be eligible for the lower simple-majority threshold for budget-related legislation and be vulnerable to a filibuster unless at least 10 Republicans and all 50 senators who caucus with Democrats vote to limit debate.

biden-s-expansive-economic-agenda-teed-up-for-senate-endorsement

Here I was all set to go with CBO scoring, PAYGO, ten year deficit neutral budgets, how waivers circumvent that (e.g. allowing the 2017 tax cuts despite their soaring deficits). And how there's a fundamental disconnect between the debt ceiling and budgeting, since the former is retrospective (must pay for money already spent or committed) while the latter is prospective.
https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/faqs-paygo
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16651184/gop-tax-bill-medicare-cut-paygo
Then you give a good, terse, two word response: "multiplier effect".

Academic does not per se equal investment prowess.
But I’ll bite……maybe
25% SCHD (Dividend aristocrats)
25% QQQ (tech/growth…same stocks tend to dominate SPY also, especially recently)
15% VNQ/FREL (Real Estate)
10% QQQJ (next big tech giants)
15% FSMEX (medical tech/devices)
10% BIV for cash/ballast (and better returns than Treasury’s….rebalance when down)
More complicated than the 90/10, and holes can be shot in the above from diff sides. But it’s my stab at it!

yeah, NFHA has lots of informative / disturbing deep dives more recently, e.g.:
https://nationalfairhousing.org/using-spcps-blog/
covering race-based denial rates and more
( interesting link within:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1002/8/ )
plus guidelines for the new admin:
https://nationalfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NFHA-Priorities-for-Biden-Administration-and-117th-Congress-2021.01.05.pdf
A great repository, including most recently covering SCotUS ruling on presidential removal of the FHFA head. Changes ahead maybe, incremental.

The Garrett Planning Network is a national network of hourly-based, fee-only financial planners.
Garrett
The following articles are a few years old but should still be useful.
Note: The SEC adopted Regulation Best Interest in 2019.
The 19 Questions to Ask Your Financial Adviser
Find the Right Financial Help
Disclaimer: I have not used financial planning services from NAPFA or Garrett.

Thanks for giving examples of what bothers you. Some I agree with, some are beyond Vanguard's control, and some don't fall under the rubric "poorly designed and inefficient".
[snip]
Research facilities are clunky and barebones - I completely agree that Vanguard doesn't provide useful fund search tools (poorly designed site in this respect, since the info is there, just not easy to get to). Then again, I wouldn't use Fidelity's fund search tool or that of any brokerage for a new search. YMMV.
I don't use Fidelity's fund screener as my primary research tool.
However, I have discovered a few good funds via Fidelity's tool that I was previously unaware of.
I'm not asking for much in the way of research tools, but it would be nice if Vanguard offered a good fund screener.
[snip]
"Balances and holdings" view of data different from "account overview" view of data - These have a relatively small amount of data in common (current price and holdings), but otherwise differ in content and purpose.
The pages reached via "account overview" provide lots of data in addition to price and holdings (YTD/1/3/5/10 year returns, SEC yield) but only as of the current (or standardized) moment in time. The pages reached via "balances and holdings" provide only the price and holdings, but at multiple moments in time.
Where I think the "modern" layout erred was in including divs and capital gains data under "Holdings." These data belongs under "Activity" as they are historical. In fact, you can find them under the Activity tab, and filter for them using the Transaction Type select box.
When I login, the "normal" Account View is displayed. The second part of each example above refers to navigating the menu under "My Accounts". You're missing the larger point that page layouts are completely different. I can't think of a good reason to implement totally different page layouts for the same (or similar) data.
Two different presentations of transaction/activity/history data- Unlike the other example, here the two sets of pages really are presenting "the same (or essentially same) data".
Some people like the ability to choose a layout, especially a "classic" (what you call "dated") layout that they're accustomed to. Others, as you wrote can get confused by having too many (read: more than one) choice.
It might have been better had Vanguard provided a mode setting for the website: "new" vs. "classic". Though given Vanguard's inability to support a "new" (brokerage platform) and "classic" (fund platform) simultaneously I have doubts about their ability to implement a mode setting.
I never wrote that others can get confused; I said it can be distracting.
It would have been better if Vanguard provided "new" and "classic" views.
Personally, what I care about is functionality and ease of use for buying/selling/exchanging mutual funds (including the ability to cancel orders). Not research, and not nightly updates by 9PM ET. Sure the website could be better, though.
Functionality and ease of use are also my two primary concerns.
I don't expect a vast array of research tooIs but a good fund screener would be nice to have.
Although Vanguard has many other strengths, their website could be improved.

Parnassus Manager Hwan's impression is that the behavior of lenders like Discover during the Covid crisis was far better than during the 2008 crisis as indicated by the company's willingness to offer temporary relief to strapped borrowers. As for credit card lending rates in general, it's hard not to look at them as usurious. But this has always been true as far as I can tell. Would I rather invest in a credit card company than an oil driller poisoning the planet from an ESG perspective? I would say yes. The lenders that tend to take the most advantage of minority groups and the poor in general aren't the credit card ones, but the payday lenders. They make credit card companies look like angels in comparison: https://consumerreports.org/loans/new-payday-loan-ruling-is-bad-news-for-borrowers/

On Election Day last month, more than four out of five Nebraska voters approved a ballot initiative that would cap interest rates on short-term, ultra-high-interest payday loans at 36 percent. The previous law allowed annual rates to climb as high as 459 percent....A 2015 survey by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company found that Hispanic and Black Americans are two and three times as likely to take out payday loans than non-Hispanic whites, respectively. And several studies by the Center for Responsible Lending have found that payday lenders disproportionately target areas with higher concentrations of people of color, even when the population data is controlled for income.

Thanks for giving examples of what bothers you. Some I agree with, some are beyond Vanguard's control, and some don't fall under the rubric "poorly designed and inefficient".
Going one by one, and recognizing that what matters to some doesn't matter to others:

• Inconsistent holdings data (balances), varying by page - I haven't experienced this, but then again I don't go into Vanguard's site two different ways in the same session. I'll take your word for this. Sounds like a similar problem to what Fidelity has where one sees updates in one's portfolio view soon after market close, but one has to wait until the wee hours of the morning to see the same account updated on the Full View holdings page. This problem clearly comes under "poorly designed".
  
• Mutual fund orders cannot be cancelled once placed - this is simply not correct. I just tested this by submitting an order on Vanguard's brokerage site and cancelling it a few seconds later.
  
• It can take several days for a non-house fund distribution to show up in an account - I see the same thing at Fidelity, where two funds (different families) make a distribution. One shows up that evening, the other isn't posted for days (though it is backdated). It's likely a matter on the third party fund side, especially since it is the same families repeatedly that I see posted days late at Fidelity.
  
• Inconsistent statistics by page - is this different from the first item, that the holdings data (and hence derived data like asset mix) vary by page?
  
• Research facilities are clunky and barebones - I completely agree that Vanguard doesn't provide useful fund search tools (poorly designed site in this respect, since the info is there, just not easy to get to). Then again, I wouldn't use Fidelity's fund search tool or that of any brokerage for a new search. YMMV.
  A Fidelity-specific problem is that in order to see closed funds (which may be open, just not at Fidelity), you have know it's necessary to include closed funds. Then you have to work to find "include closed funds" checkbox. It's buried under "Fund Features" in full criteria screener.
  More generally, brokerage screeners won't show you funds that the brokerage doesn't carry, unlike MFO or M*. For example, Fidelity's screener doesn't show you Vanguard U.S. Multifactor Fund. But Schwab's screener does, because Schwab sells VFMFX.
  
• Can take up to twelve hours for a trade to post - I see the same thing at Fidelity. The impression I have is that on the fund side, they gather all the orders together and process them in bulk. If that's correct, this would be an example of efficiency, not inefficiency. And not a problem with the website, but an attribute of the in-house fund family.
  
• "Balances and holdings" view of data different from "account overview" view of data - These have a relatively small amount of data in common (current price and holdings), but otherwise differ in content and purpose.
  The pages reached via "account overview" provide lots of data in addition to price and holdings (YTD/1/3/5/10 year returns, SEC yield) but only as of the current (or standardized) moment in time. The pages reached via "balances and holdings" provide only the price and holdings, but at multiple moments in time.
  Where I think the "modern" layout erred was in including divs and capital gains data under "Holdings." These data belongs under "Activity" as they are historical. In fact, you can find them under the Activity tab, and filter for them using the Transaction Type select box.
  
• Two different presentations of transaction/activity/history data- Unlike the other example, here the two sets of pages really are presenting "the same (or essentially same) data".
  Some people like the ability to choose a layout, especially a "classic" (what you call "dated") layout that they're accustomed to. Others, as you wrote can get confused by having too many (read: more than one) choice.
  It might have been better had Vanguard provided a mode setting for the website: "new" vs. "classic". Though given Vanguard's inability to support a "new" (brokerage platform) and "classic" (fund platform) simultaneously I have doubts about their ability to implement a mode setting.

Personally, what I care about is functionality and ease of use for buying/selling/exchanging mutual funds (including the ability to cancel orders). Not research, and not nightly updates by 9PM ET. Sure the website could be better, though.

I'll draw your attention to the chart in the CEF Analyzer link. Click on the 2Yr option and look at April of 2020. If you can handle a $5 drop in market price then explore the other tabs on the website as well. Note also the drop in distributions over time. I'm not saying that it's a bad current holding but I personally would be looking for a larger discount before considering a purchase.

DSL. 8.05% pay-out. Share price up, but still trading at a small discount to NAV.
https://ycharts.com/companies/DSL

https://fpa.com/docs/default-source/funds/fpa-queens-road-small-cap-value-fund/literature/fpa-queens-road-annual-report_06-30-21_web-ready.pdf?sfvrsn=34a2919d_5
Try this link if interested.

Cute - Performance 5 yr window is 1895-1899

I ran across tickers for this phantom fund: CCCJX (class A), CCFSX (class I), CCDWX (class C).
TDAmeritrade listing of D&C funds
The SEC site has nothing I can find, so I'm confident that this is not a soon to be launched fund. But if there is anything at all real about it, it suggests that D&C is considering, or at one time considered, load funds. Given that D&C already offers DODLX, its global bond fund, a global fixed income fund would seem redundant. Perhaps just a little jetsam from when D&C was creating DODLX?

Vanguard's website for brokerage clients is poorly designed and inefficient.
The "look and feel" reminds me of websites from the late '90s or early aughts!

Do you mean like this one (link is to a capture of Scottrade's login page from June 25, 2004)?
https://web.archive.org/web/20040625091038/http://www1.scottsave.com/Login.asp?lang=
I wonder if people really do remember what barebones websites looked like. It's not even close.
Poorly designed is a matter of opinion. Could you expound?
For example, when I want to buy a non-VG fund at VBS, I can enter a ticker or I can select a family from a select box, and then a specific fund from a second select box loaded with funds from the selected family. Clean, simple, informative.
Fidelity's website has two different trading interfaces. One is a pop up summoned by clicking on "Trade" when viewing one's portfolio, the other is a stark web/mobile page navigated to by clicking the "Trade" selection from the drop down "Accounts and Trade" link near the upper left corner of most account/portfolio pages.
The latter interface has a Symbol box which when made active (clicked) shows current fund holdings in the selected account. But I can find no help in identifying the symbol of a new fund to buy. You need to look up the symbol on your own and enter it.
The former interface, the pop up dialog box, has the same limitation unless one switches off what Fidelity calls the "New Trade Experience". Then when one activates the Symbol box, one sees a link to "Find a Symbol". Now we're getting somewhere, albeit slowly.
That link brings up another window, where one has to again click on "Find a Symbol" (that choice isn't pre-selected), then indicate that the search is for a fund (not stock), then do a search. That search returns tickers of the matching fund or funds.
Next, either copy that ticker back into the original pop up dialog search box or click the ticker symbol. Doing the latter navigates that search page to summary data of the selected fund. That page has a trade button. Hurray!
But clicking that button causes the original Fidelity page to navigate away from the page it was on (thus abandoning the pop up dialog trade box), and brings you to the web/mobile trade page already briefly discussed. It loses some of the info you may have entered into the original pop up dialog box.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Finding and entering a fund to buy on VBS is significantly easier and more efficient. Other parts of entering a fund trade are more difficult.
Hence the request for specifics about the poor design and inefficiencies you find on the VBS website for mutual funds.

From a technical pov, catch22 has it right. Improvements in battery technology, specifically charge density and charge time, are critical to widespread adoption. The batteries cost a small fortune, have a limited lifespan, take a long time to charge, have a limited running time/travel distance, and are heavy. If we can get cars which can use solar power or charge in 10 minutes, and can run for 5-6 hours, THEN we've got something!

Frank Holmes (US Global Investors) chimes in:
how-to-participate-in-the-coming-electric-vehicle-ev-boom