NICHX/UNIQX has interval structure and that means that you can buy it anytime but redemptions are limited to small % per redemption window (5-25% of NAV per quarter).

Wondering if the legal issues connected to HMEZX have been cleared up-specifically the Jim Dondero bankruptcy, etc ?

I'm guessing somebody like Dondero maximizes his litigation efforts and makes sure it all gets buried, a la 45. A decent (and highly paid) legal team can do that.

Couple thoughts...
1) Leveraged rail-car leases?
2) Your health? Adult USA population only ~12% have NO metabolic issues (cholestrol, high blood pressure, overweight, high blood sugar) What are YOU doing to take care of yourself? Getting ill is very expensive!
Best,
Baseball Fan

#2 above simply blew my mind. So I looked it up and below is the link to your statement. The study was from 2018 so more than likely is even less than 12% now. I would wager many/most not in that 12% are overestimating their longevity believing they will live to 100 or longer. In the process they will continue to accumulate, accumulate and die with far more assets than needed. All the while not enjoying the precious present.
Edit: Reminds me of something I read on Bogleheads. Investors under estimate the risk of death. Hence you are more likely to be dead before you become (really) old and broke. So quit worrying so much about that unlikely event ( really old and broke)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181128115045.htm

The immediate consequences of switching index provider is that VIGI distributed 6.5% cap gains. Luckily, the switch did not result in VIG needing to trigger any cap gains or it had sufficient prior cap losses to soak up any cap gains triggered from the switch. VIG has net realized (and unused) cap losses as of 11/30/2021 which as a percentage of NAV amounted to 2.65%. Any ETF other than the ones that are tracking broad indices like SPY, QQQ, etc. always runs the risk of triggering cap gains because the sponsor can switch the underlying index provider (and shareholders vote in favor without recognizing the cost to them). This happened to me on another ETF 5-6 years ago. In any case, I will not be adding to VIG / VIGI anymore or for that matter buy any new Vanguard ETFs that are just a different class of their mutual funds because cap gains triggered by mutual fund redemptions can be allocated to the separate class ETFs.
Below is the M* article re the switch.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1040749/dissecting-vanguards-new-dividend-indexes
Note: M* quote page for VIGI has inaccurate info for December 2021 distributions. It overstates dividend (income) distribution by approx the size of the cap gain. Per share total distribution for December quarter per Vanguard is approx $5.4; whereas, M* shows $10.6

Here is the summary prospectus for Global Explorer Fund:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834421024162/fp0071172_497k.htm

@BaluBalu :Here is the link.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3781285-jpmorgan-chase-to-pay-200m-to-settle-probes-on-employee-communications?lctg=60e5bff2d935fc51cb3d2067&mailingid=26105343&messageid=wall_street_breakfast&serial=26105343.1518283&userid=54611039&utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha

The 80+% bond allocation is well positioned for further stock decline. Majority of the bond is high quality, AAA and some in BBB. Duration is 5.5 years so it is reasonable for the rising rate in 2022.

update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/889284/000139834421024111/fp0071142_497.htm
497 1 fp0071142_497.htm
STERLING CAPITAL FUNDS
SUPPLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 20, 2021
TO THE
CLASS A AND CLASS C SHARES PROSPECTUS AND THE
INSTITUTIONAL AND CLASS R6 SHARES PROSPECTUS,
EACH DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2021, AS SUPPLEMENTED
This Supplement provides the following amended and supplemental information and supersedes any information to the contrary in the Class A and Class C Shares Prospectus and the Institutional, Class R6 Shares Prospectus, each dated February 1, 2021 (collectively, the “Prospectuses”), with respect to Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund and Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund:
Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund
Effective immediately, George Shipp will cease to serve as co-portfolio manager of the Fund, due to his upcoming retirement from the Adviser as disclosed July 12, 2021. Accordingly, the “Management—Portfolio Managers” section in the Prospectuses with respect to Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
Portfolio Managers
Joshua L. Haggerty, CFA
Executive Director of Sterling Capital and Co-Portfolio Manager
Since July 2021
(formerly, Associate Portfolio Manager from February 2016 – July 2021)
Daniel A. Morrall
Executive Director of Sterling Capital and Co-Portfolio Manager
Since December 2021
(formerly, Associate Portfolio Manager from July 2021 – December 2021)
Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund
Effective immediately, George Shipp will cease to serve as co-portfolio manager of the Fund, due to his upcoming retirement from the Adviser as disclosed July 12, 2021. Accordingly, the “Management—Portfolio Managers” section in the Prospectuses with respect to Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
Portfolio Managers
Adam B. Bergman, CFA
Executive Director of Sterling Capital and Co-Portfolio Manager
Since July 2021
(formerly, Associate Portfolio Manager from February 2016 – July 2021)
Charles J. Wittmann
Executive Director of Sterling Capital and Co-Portfolio Manager
Since December 2021
(formerly, Associate Portfolio Manager from July 2021 – December 2021)
The following replaces the description of the Portfolio Managers set forth under “Fund Management—Portfolio Managers” in the Prospectuses with respect to the Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund and Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund:
Special Opportunities Fund and Equity Income Fund. Joshua L. Haggerty, CFA, Executive Director, joined the CHOICE Asset Management team of BB&T Scott & Stringfellow in 2005, which integrated with Sterling Capital in January 2013. He has investment experience since 1998. He has been Co-Portfolio Manager of the Special Opportunities Fund since July 2021 and was Associate Portfolio Manager of the Special Opportunities Fund from February 2016 to July 2021. Josh is a graduate of James Madison University where he received his BBA in Finance. He holds the Chartered Financial Analyst® designation.
Adam B. Bergman, CFA, Executive Director, joined the CHOICE Asset Management team of Scott & Stringfellow in 2007, which integrated with Sterling Capital Management in January 2013. He has investment experience since 1996. He has been Co-Portfolio Manager of the Equity Income Fund since July 2021 and was Associate Portfolio Manager of the Equity Income Fund from February 2016 to July 2021. Adam is a graduate of the University of Virginia’s McIntire School of Commerce where he received his BS in Commerce. He holds the Chartered Financial Analyst® designation.
Charles J. Wittmann, CFA, Executive Director, joined Sterling Capital Management in 2014 and has investment experience since 1995. He has been Co-Portfolio Manager of the Equity Income Fund since December 2021 and was Associate Portfolio Manager of the Equity Income Fund from July 2021 to December 2021. Prior to joining Sterling Capital, he worked for Thompson Siegel & Walmsley as a portfolio manager and (generalist) analyst. Prior to TS&W, he was a founding portfolio manager and analyst with Shockoe Capital, an equity long/short hedge fund. Charles received his B.A. in Economics from Davidson College and his M.B.A. from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business. He holds the Chartered Financial Analyst® designation.
Daniel A. Morrall, Executive Director, joined Sterling Capital Management in 2014 and has investment experience since 2001. He has been Co-Portfolio Manager of the Special Opportunities Fund since December 2021and was Associate Portfolio Manager of the Special Opportunities Fund from July 2021 to December 2021. Prior to joining Sterling Capital, he worked as an equity analyst for Harber Asset Management and S Squared Technology LLC, technology-biased long/short funds. Dan received his B.S. in Business and Economics from Washington and Lee University, his M.B.A. from Columbia Business School, and his M.S.I.T. from Capella University.
SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
WITH THE PROSPECTUSES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
SUPP-1221
-2-

This Omicron situation reminds everyone when the 2020 pandemic started. Even with the COVID vaccines, antibody and antiviral treatments, one would expect we would be in a much better situation but sadly we are not. I am not surprised that market futures are all red, indicating there is more downside to come in 2022.
Not so pretty on Monday morning. Holland has imposed lockdown while the rest of Europe has restricted travel across the boarder. Other part of the world is undergoing similar measures. Will have to wait if this take the same path as 2020. It took about a month to cut interest rate to 0.25% and buying $bullion of bonds monthly. Question is what is left in the tank?

Hard to tell if Carillon Tower has anything strategic in mind. It acquired Scout Funds (including its subsidiary Reams) in 2017 and left the management in place. But it used those funds as acquiring funds to merge two non-Scout funds into oblivion. I haven't yet checked on the health/size of existing Carillon-owned funds.
Carillon acquisition of Scout:
https://www.carillontower.com/our-thinking/scout-reams-acquisition
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2017/05/briefly-noted-9/
From the latter: "Carillon wasn’t particularly transparent and the guy representing Scout was curt to the point of being rude."
Carillon subsequent "disappearing" of funds:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/40819/carillon-series-trust-reorganizes-two-funds
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2018/01/briefly-noted-17/
In the latter, Prof Snowball characterizes these moves and more as "housecleaning". Part of that was to liquidate one of the Scout/Reams acquired funds, then called Carillon Reams Low Duration Bond Fund.
The current suite of Carillon funds:
https://www.carillontower.com/our-funds/fund-strategies

For context, the source of the figures is Morningstar. See, e.g.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1072421/existing-trends-in-us-fund-flows-hold-in-november
As Vanguard's total AUM of $7.2B is significantly more than the total AUM of iShares, Fidelity, and State Street combined ($6.0B), it's not unexpected that Vanguard would draw more money. From these summary figures, it seems as though Vanguard's rate of growth is slower than that of the others'.
It would be interesting to know how much in assets are held in passive investments at each company and how they compare in attracting more passive money. For example, the fourth largest firm in terms of AUM is American Funds. (State Street is just half its size.) But American Funds had no passive money flows last month. Which is completely unsurprising - it offers no passive funds.
In November, iShares alone was close to Vanguard in the amount of passive money it drew ($27B vs $31B). Fidelity was far behind even though it is of comparable size to iShares. Again not surprising, since Fidelity offers a wide variety of actively managed funds.
OTOH, Fidelity may be doing well in head-to-head matchups: Fidelity's S&P 500 fund FXAIX outdrew Vanguard's VFINX in October¹. Though they were both well behind iShares Core S&P 500 IVV and State Street's SPY. That might have more to do with the sales channel (ETF vs. OEF) than with the funds or families themselves.
¹ Source is M*'s full fund flows report; when one requests a download, one gets the October report.

Vanguard has benefitted from two big trends: indexing and target-date funds.
Vanguard had $357B of inflows year to date through November.
This was more than the total of $353B for iShares, Fidelity, and State Street combined.

I have a friend who owned a condo (not a co-op) in Ocean Grove - a town where the land is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/210652120
Leases there are typically for 99 years. In the past few years there seems to have been a fair amount of commotion about the terms and rates of those leases. My friend sold before then, after being shocked, shocked, at the high NJ property taxes. No problems regarding prices or conducting transactions, though.
I dug up a couple of articles about some of the more recent leasing problems there. These seem like worst case scenarios and not something one would typically be concerned about, at least if the lease is clear and you know what to expect.
It seems that in 2016 the Camp Meeting Association tried to increase the rents for land occupied by commercial property. People organized to to sue to void the entire leasing scheme. The land owner backed down, but according to the article, at least one sale closed at reduced price because of the potential increase in the land rent. (The rent would have increased from $21 to $5K!)
https://thecoaster.net/wordpress/no-increase-planned-for-ocean-grove-land-leases/
More recently (article below is from three days ago), the Camp Meeting Association started up again with increased rents and modified terms.

The Camp Meeting Association has begun to issue new leases for commercial properties here that come with higher rent and reminders that its owners need to refrain from selling anything that would be considered incompatible with Christian values. ...
The Camp Meeting historically ... and transferred the leases to new owners when the properties were sold. But it has begun to review and issue new leases for properties that aren't single-family homes when they change hands, offering terms that can include higher rent, fewer years and restrictions on activities it finds antithetical. ...
The morals clause, she said, opens the door to interpretation.

https://www.app.com/story/news/local/neptune-wall/ocean-grove/2021/12/15/ocean-grove-camp-meeting-association-raises-rents-businesses/8718660002/
Yankee Stadium (the original) was owned by the Knights of Columbus and the land was owned by Rice University. (The Yankees leased the stadium.) This complicated matters in the 70s when Yankee Stadium was renovated.
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/08/11/archives/city-acquires-the-title-to-yankee-stadium.html

Just a few brief notes on David's launch alert segment for BIAYX. Intrigued by the fund I checked into it at Fidelity. The minimum there is $2500 AND they won't/don't let you buy it in a retirement account unless you call them. For whatever reason (at least I couldn't find one in either the funds literature, website or prospectus) Fidelity has tagged this fund as being tax-advantaged and endeavors to dissuade one from buying it in retirement accounts. YMMV.

Land-lease can be renewed at higher amount or land can be bought outright by property owners. It depends on the nature and state of properties. That the land-lease owner will send bulldozers to demolish properties at lease expiry doesn't make economic sense. But it sure is an added complication.
Many of Manhattan buildings are on leased land. Rockefeller Center was on land owned by Columbia U. In 1985, Rockefeller Center paid $400 million to buy the land from Columbia U.
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/06/nyregion/colombia-is-to-get-400-million-in-rockefeller-center-land-sale.html
https://streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/28861-complete-list-of-land-lease-buidlings-in-manhattan

My parents lived on a lake in the north Georgia mountains that was owned by Georgia Power Co. The power company owned most of the land bordering the lake and leased lots to homeowners for 100 years. That arrangement apparently hasn’t hurt residents because the cost of homes has skyrocketed over the years. My parents originally bought their home in the 1960s for about $14,000. My mom sold the house in the 1980s for about $350,000 and the same house is probably worth $1 million plus now.

@BenWP
Here's something I found:

Try tossing cards. This game requires two to five players. Begin by marking a line about 6 to 12 feet from a wall. Decide how many cards each player will have for each round. Player One stands behind the line, then tosses each card (individually) towards the wall. The game continues with each player tossing his own cards. Whoever is closest to the wall wins. An ideal position is when the card lands leaning against the wall; however, other players can knock it out of place to steal the win.

play-baseball-cards-6125430

I was hoping someone had a cheat sheet reference/link.
Lets take a random example VEXRX. The fund owns individual securities derived from 5 advisors... 4 of them with different fundamental investment philosophies. So I assume Vanguard is getting presented with 4 different recommended portfolios of equities. How does Vanguard decide which stocks get included in the VEXRX portfolio and what % for each holding? What is the Vanguard process to choose or exclude all the stocks recommended by their advisors?
I am not recommending VEXRX. I do not own VEXRX. I know nothing about VEXRX. No need to critique the fund.

@Mark...Agree. Non "Fun"-gible Tokens.
You can't even close-pin them to your bike like the Fun tokens we collected/traded as a kid.

I bought a property in a very unique community that has 45 years left on a 100 year land lease. The property is part of a Co-op (think Condo) but our association doesn't own the land. We pay a hefty land lease fee on top of our normal HOA expenses.
It's my first year as an owner and I am questioning the logic of our board members regarding insurance premiums. None of these properties are bank owned... everyone is cash. Insurance premium increased 25% this year over last year's costs. To add insult to injury, the association needed a bridge loan to avoid payment penalties from the insurer. That loan charges 4.61% interest.
We are in year 55 of a 100 year lease which means that in 45 year the value of the condo goes to zero (for shareholders...remember I own a share of a Co-Op) and the land lease owner takes possession of all of our "property".
I understand the importance and need for basic insurance coverage (liability being one), but I would like find alternative ways to manage the risk of an aging property and its diminishing value due to the this land lease dynamic.
Anyone have any thoughts on this very unique real estate dynamic that I now call home (well at least until I am 107)?