Passage of this bill would force taxable account investors to buy and hold onto individual stocks to continue to receive some of the advantages available through tax-deferred retirement accounts. That would uncomfortably alter the investing landscape for many taxable account ETF investors.

msf -
The question was asked and answered about Vanguard's and S&P's disclosures in the context of a switch in index providers for its VDADX/VIG vehicles.
Your posts - bringing Fidelity, iShares, and Franklin into the mix, and bringing up, as you say, "average market caps" or mean market caps, rather than the median (which was under discussion) seem to me to be the financial equivalent of "what-aboutism".
WIKI
Wiki link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER
M-W link here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning
Whataboutism ... is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.
For the life of me, I can't understand why you are responding so vociferously to my original statements or conclusions.
1. There is a standard, well accepted definition of median.
2. Standard (no pun) & Poor's uses this definition in their description of their indices, including the new one that will be adopted by VDADX/VIG.
3. Vanguard does not use this definition.
4. Vanguard uses its own definition of median that is not clearly labelled (as noted by BaluBalu, it should be labelled "Weighted Median"), and Vanguard's (mal)practice can confuse Vanguard investors (such as BaluBalu).
IMHO, if you want to have a discussion about average (rather than median) market cap conventions used by various other market participants - go for it. Perhaps you could start a new thread for that topic.
PS: While I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of Vanguard's poor website design (good Lord, we have enough of those!) consider the following.
Below is the link to the search results I obtained for 'median', when using the Vanguard website search box. None of them refer to the 'retirement plan' definition that you provided.
(Wonder what the definition for median is when you are not in a retirement plan?)
https://investor.vanguard.com/search/?origin=fasHome&legalStuff=otherStuff&query=median#query=median|filter=dataIDall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median
BaluBalu - You're welcome, and thank you for agreeing that Vanguard's terminology and definitions are - at best - confusing.
msf - Thank you for confirming that Vanguard's definition of median does not conform to the standard definition of median, and that S&P uses the standard definition of median.
Also - the link to Vanguard's definition that you provided (under retirement plans?, really?) is pretty obscure. If you're going to make up your own terms as Vanguard does, think that Vanguard should label them as such, and do so on the page or section where they are used.
Again ... Vanguard's non-standard use of median makes you wonder what other terms they are fooling around with.

Wade Pfau discusses his new book in this 1 hour webinar:
introduction-to-the-retirement-planning-guidebook

Like @Griffin, I am a longtime follower, but first-time poster. I felt compelled to chime in on this thread because it concerns two of my very favorite funds. I have held substantial positions in both AKRIX and EGFIX for several years and am very pleased with both. I wish the expense ratios were lower, but that is my only complaint and I was able to access the institutional shares at Fidelity so they are 1.05 and 1.00, respectively.
I tend to prefer high active share, concentrated funds, which led me to the aforementioned pair, as well as the somewhat tamer PRBLX and JENSX.
I am not at all concerned about Chuck Akre’s retirement because I have faith that the portfolio managers John Neff and Chris Cerrone have learned a lot from their mentor. And the fact the fund has such a low turnover rate means they will not be called upon to do a lot of trading, anyways. If you are looking for high active share and low downside capture, you will be hard pressed to find a better fund.
I first learned of Edgewood Growth when I saw it listed as one of the top performing large growth funds over the past 5 and 10 years in a table posted online by Kiplinger’s. The thing that stood out to me was that out of the 10 funds listed in each of the tables it was the only one listed that did not have a volatility ranking of 9 or 10. (It was a 5).
I like the fact this fund is not discussed too much on these kinds of forums. It keeps it a sort of hidden gem. But with total assets of more than $35 billion, it has obviously caught the attention of a lot of (I think smart) investors.

+1 Thanks @sma3
Shorting stocks is fraught with peril. Simple reason being a stock has no limit (theoretically) on how high it can go. Losses could be indefinite. However, in the hands of an experienced trader, fund manager, etc. short sales can add one dimension to the overall approach. As you note, there are ways to hedge that theoretical loss if you’re experienced enough. In defense of shorts, DODBX’s last semiannual report mentioned their holding a 5% short position on the S&P.
Guessing market direction is always tough - and we’re usually wrong. From my experience you’ve got only perhaps a 1 in 10 chance of getting it right at any given time. I think whether to own one of the short etfs you mention, or a fund like TMSRX or an inverse fund has a lot to do with age, circumstance and willingness to take risk. For a younger or even mid-50s worker who is socking $$ away for retirement, they should stay as far away from the short / inverse gimmicks as possible. But for an oldster looking to protect a substantial nest egg these “gimmick” approach’s might help buffer against severe unexpected loss. As with insurance, there is a price to be paid - likely muted returns over the long haul compared to not using them.

M* take on Tad Rivelle's retirement:
"Rivelle is a giant in the fixed-income world, and his retirement is noteworthy.
However, the strength of the remaining trio of generalist managers and the quality of the specialist teams that support them should assuage investors’ concerns.
We are maintaining the High People Pillar ratings on Metropolitan West Total Return Bond, TCW Core Fixed Income TGCFX, Metropolitan West Low Duration Bond MWLIX, and Metropolitan West Unconstrained Bond MWCIX, as well as the Above Average People Pillar rating on TCW Total Return Bond TGLMX. These funds all maintain their current Morningstar Analyst Ratings."

Exactly. Vanguard only allows cancel order early in morning. Other times are not okay even if you call their agents.
I will talk with their Flagship service first to see if I can get into the Investor shares first. Afterward i can add up to $25k per year until reaching the Admiral requirement, $50K.

As Flagship, you can. If you desire, you can purchase $25K of Primecap and $25K of Capital Opportunity between now and the end of the year, and then purchase $25K in each after the first of the year, and convert to Admiral Shares, assuming the total in each is 50K or greater.
Let's have some fun with this and my guess is if you call Vanguard six times, you will get three different answers. This is my understanding:
Let's say that you have your retirement accounts with Vanguard. A Roth, Inherited, and Rollover IRA. You can purchase $25K of Primecap and $25K of Capital Opportunity in each account, each year.
Let's say that you have four taxable accounts with Vanguard, all with different account numbers. You can purchase $25K of Primecap and $25K of Capital Opportunity in each account, each year.
Now you ask, what prevents me from opening additonal accounts at Vanguard with different account numbers and put $25K of Primecap and $25K of Capital Opportunity in each account, each year?
My answer is nothing.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/892071/000119312521258957/d158365d497.htm
TCW Funds, Inc.
Supplement dated August 27, 2021 to the
Prospectus dated March 1, 2021 (the “Prospectus”)
For current and prospective investors in the TCW Core Fixed Income Fund, the TCW Enhanced Commodity Strategy Fund, the TCW Global Bond Fund, the TCW Short Term Bond Fund, the TCW Total Return Bond Fund (each a “Fund” and together, the “Funds”)
TCW Investment Management Company LLC, the investment adviser to each Fund (the “Adviser”), has announced that Tad Rivelle, one of the portfolio manager for the Funds, will retire from the Adviser at year-end. The remaining portfolio managers for those Funds will continue to have responsibility for managing the Funds after his retirement.
The Adviser has provided the following statement regarding Tad Rivelle’s retirement:
“We are writing today to provide you news on developments that we have long prepared for in the management of our business and the trusted oversight of our client portfolios. Committing ourselves as we have over the years to a team approach to managing assets, focused on process, we have tapped the collective best thinking of our investment professionals and established redundancies that serve the essential need for consistency of approach.
It is against this backdrop that we announce forthcoming changes to our Generalist team, first that Tad Rivelle, following nearly 35 years in the industry, will retire from TCW Investment Management Company LLC, the Funds’ adviser, at year-end, and that Laird Landmann, Steve Kane and Bryan Whalen will continue as Generalist portfolio managers, with Steve and Bryan assuming Co-CIO roles for the Fixed Income team beginning in the fourth quarter 2021. The Specialist portfolio managers that comprise such a key element of our team and process, remain in place, and continue to guide the management of their sectors, supported by well-built out trading and research functions, in which TCW continues to make considerable commitments from a resource and systems standpoint.
Says Tad Rivelle: “We recognized very early on that asset management businesses are built on trust and competence. The enduring success of the team and of the TCW fixed income enterprise has been predicated not only on delivering the pattern of returns as represented but also on an unwavering commitment to transparency with our clients. I have had the pleasure and honor of working with a team of Specialist managers of unrivalled competence, led by a team of Generalists, for now some 20 to 30 years, who have first, last and always placed client interests above all else.”
As an additional dimension to these changes, longtime Senior Analyst to the Generalists Ruben Hovhannisyan has been promoted to a newly-established Associate Generalist position. Expectations are that these functions will scale over time, as a commitment to evergreen management and to building a deep bench of investment talent, as well as in response to business demands and emerging opportunities.
Naturally, change in our industry is one that brings with it plenty in the way of questions and we stand ready to address inquiries about this and all aspects of our business. We appreciate your ongoing partnership and look forward to those opportunities.”
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.
From Metropolitan West:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1028621/000119312521258954/d160297d497.htm
497 1 d160297d497.htm 497
Metropolitan West Funds (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated August 27, 2021 to the
Prospectus dated July 29, 2021 (the “Prospectus”)
For current and prospective investors in the Metropolitan West AlphaTrak 500 Fund, the Metropolitan West Intermediate Bond Fund, the Metropolitan West Investment Grade Credit Fund, the Metropolitan West Low Duration Bond Fund, the Metropolitan West Strategic Income Fund, the Metropolitan West Total Return Bond Fund, the Metropolitan West Ultra Short Bond Fund, the Metropolitan West Unconstrained Bond Fund, the Metropolitan West Flexible Income Fund and the Metropolitan West Opportunistic High Income Credit Fund (each a “Fund” and together, the “Funds”)
Metropolitan West Asset Management, LLC, the investment adviser to each Fund (the “Adviser”), has announced that Tad Rivelle, one of the portfolio manager for the Funds, will retire from the Adviser at year-end. The remaining portfolio managers for those Funds will continue to have responsibility for managing the Funds after his retirement.
The Adviser has provided the following statement regarding Tad Rivelle’s retirement:
“We are writing today to provide you news on developments that we have long prepared for in the management of our business and the trusted oversight of our client portfolios. Committing ourselves as we have over the years to a team approach to managing assets, focused on process, we have tapped the collective best thinking of our investment professionals and established redundancies that serve the essential need for consistency of approach.
It is against this backdrop that we announce forthcoming changes to our Generalist team, first that Tad Rivelle, following nearly 35 years in the industry, will retire from Metropolitan West Asset Management, LLC, the Funds’ adviser, at year-end, and that Laird Landmann, Steve Kane and Bryan Whalen will continue as Generalist portfolio managers, with Steve and Bryan assuming Co-CIO roles for the Fixed Income team beginning in the fourth quarter 2021. The Specialist portfolio managers that comprise such a key element of our team and process, remain in place, and continue to guide the management of their sectors, supported by well-built out trading and research functions, in which TCW continues to make considerable commitments from a resource and systems standpoint.
Says Tad Rivelle: “We recognized very early on that asset management businesses are built on trust and competence. The enduring success of the team and of the TCW fixed income enterprise has been predicated not only on delivering the pattern of returns as represented but also on an unwavering commitment to transparency with our clients. I have had the pleasure and honor of working with a team of Specialist managers of unrivalled competence, led by a team of Generalists, for now some 20 to 30 years, who have first, last and always placed client interests above all else.”
As an additional dimension to these changes, longtime Senior Analyst to the Generalists Ruben Hovhannisyan has been promoted to a newly-established Associate Generalist position. Expectations are that these functions will scale over time, as a commitment to evergreen management and to building a deep bench of investment talent, as well as in response to business demands and emerging opportunities.
Naturally, change in our industry is one that brings with it plenty in the way of questions and we stand ready to address inquiries about this and all aspects of our business. We appreciate your ongoing partnership and look forward to those opportunities.”
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.
LEGAL_US_W # 109241964.2

I have been using Firstrade for years and happy with service overall. I can confirm that they do charge loads for load funds, but I still find they have the best selection of funds being offered at NTF AND institutional shares at low minimums in some cases.

Firstrade is great for access to shares that you can't get elsewhere. I used it for years to get Franklin-Templeton's lower cost Advisor class shares.
While it's not as bare bones as it was when I was a customer, it's still not a brokerage I'd use as my primary institution. It doesn't make ATM reimbursements (and charges foreign transaction fees except for one per month), and has check printing fees, ACAT transfer fees, and limited phone hours (M-F). They don't seem to offer mobile deposits. IMHO none of which is significant for a secondary brokerage.
The main question in my mind is how long the free fund trading will last. I'm repeating myself here: we've seen similar programs sent off to the dustbin of history including Welltrade, Scottrade, and Scudder Retirement Plus. Though even if it brings back its $9.95 charge per trade, that's little more than a nuisance fee and not much more than the $5 that Fidelity charges for incremental investments in TF funds.

Just received from TDA...
However, the transaction fee for your purchases of funds from certain fund families that do not pay TD Ameritrade for record keeping, shareholder, and other administrative services on the shares purchased will increase to $74.95.

WOW I am sure Schwab will apply $75 fee across the board

People may not be aware of how brokerages are compensated by funds, even TF funds, for shelf space. For example, Schwab discloses:

To compensate Schwab for various shareholder services, NTF Funds pay Schwab an asset-based annual fee, which usually equals 0.40% of the average fund assets held at Schwab but may be as high as 0.45%. ... When adding a new fund to Schwab’s NTF platform, NTF Funds also pay Schwab a one-time establishment fee.
...
Most [Transaction] Fee Funds pay Schwab a low annual asset-based fee, typically 0.10% annually of the average fund assets held at Schwab, although the fee can range up to 0.25% annually. ... When adding a new fund to Schwab’s platform, [Transaction] Fee Funds also pay Schwab a one-time establishment fee.

As a business decision, brokerages may decide to carry funds that refuse to pay even this "low" fee. Conversely, funds may make a business decision not to offer their funds on some platforms even if they are charged nothing. This is where the $75 fee kicks in and why you can't get Admiral shares on most platforms.

“Vanguard doesn’t compensate us for the services we provide,” a Fidelity spokeswoman told Barron’s. “That’s why there’s a higher transaction fee for its funds,” she added, referring to the $75 fee that Fidelity charges to buy a Vanguard fund, well above its normal $49.95 rate.
...
Maintaining the exclusive rights to sell its low-cost Admiral shares for active funds is one way to prevent firms like Fidelity or Schwab from poaching client assets. “Vanguard is saying, ‘Why should we offer our best priced item on someone else’s shelf when we want investors to stay with us?’” Daniel Wiener, editor of monthly newsletter The Independent Adviser for Vanguard Investors, tells Barron’s.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/vanguard-lowest-cost-funds-fidelity-retirement-schwab-51556315451 (April 28, 2019)

Here's SSAs summary of ways to make social security solvent. 22 out of the 33 pages are tables with bullet items and brief descriptions of different changes that could be made.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/summary.pdf
For the gory detail, see https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/index.html
One of the changes caught my eye because by itself it would reduce the long range actuarial balance shortfall by 86%. (For limitations in using the actuarial balance as a single magic number, see here, under A Range of Financial Measures.)
People are likely familiar with the fact that one's primary insurance amount (PIA), i.e. what one receives at full retirement age (FRA), is calculated based on one's 35 highest years of earnings. But earnings 35 years ago have to be adjusted; $1K in wages in 1986 was worth a whole lot more than $1K in wages today.
Have you ever thought about how that adjustment is made? I suspect that most people who have given it any thought believe that one's earnings are adjusted for inflation, just as SS payments have a COLA adjustment.
The proposed change, item B1.1 in the summary, is to calculate PIA precisely this way. This change would take care of most of the shortfall because in reality the current system is much more generous than merely adjusting past wages for inflation.

When we compute an insured worker's benefit, we first adjust or "index" his or her earnings to reflect the change in general wage levels that occurred during the worker's years of employment. Such indexation ensures that a worker's future benefits reflect the general rise in the standard of living that occurred during his or her working lifetime.

Emphasis added.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/Benefits.html
While there are reasons I don't like this particular change, it would nevertheless be nearly invisible (as described) and come close to making SS solvent over the next 75 years (the planning horizon).

Old David and young JoJo, my 2 cents. I definitely agree that SS (and medicare) is one of the more efficiently run government programs. On the contrary, funding of that program is inadequate and has not kept up with the fact of increased life expectancy and the fact the ratio of ss receivers and tax paying workers has drastically changed in the last 30 years.
There are multiple ways to fund the program way past the life expectancy of a 32 year old or even a 3 year old, but politics always seems to be the road block. Politicians will always make short term decisions that get them reelected versus making hard decisions to protect the country long term,
Some thoughts to make ss viable for jojo:
1-raise the tax on the employee or the employer or both
2-eliminate or substantially raise the earnings ceiling that can be taxed
3-reduce the size of payouts based on need, means testing, or eliminate payment to those who don't need the money altogether
4-increase the retirement age
For me, all these are viable. Enact all and the pain likely will not be felt by anyone. Pick 2 out of these 4 and a 32 year old will not have to worry about SS not being there for their retirement.

Therein lie the issue... You actually believe SS and MC are efficiently run. Please explain to me how these programs are sustainable.
I'm 32, and when I think about planning for retirement even my bull case does not include an assumption of SS. Why? Because it will not exist by the time it's "my turn."

Ben ,one option is to ACH transfer the Vanguard funds to E-Trade, as Vanguard funds are ntf at E-Trade. As a former client , their customer service isn't great but it's better than Vanguard. A second consideration is how long will this arrangement last, given that E-Trade is now part of Morgan Stanley ? I left E-Trade once T Rowe Price funds became available ntf at Schwab, Fido and Vanguard.

Thanks. My investments in Vanguard funds are from pre-brokerage days. I hold these directly in a non-retirement account bypassing the brokerage. I don't think ACH is available this situation. One would have to first sell all shares and of course pay income tax on the gains.
I do own shares in one T Rowe Price fund. I didn't need a brokerage to do this. I just invested directly. And T Rowe customer service has been splendid. I know some people are not having not-so-good experience with this but I got lucky I guess.

Per M*, but not sure if it's current/accurate:
Brokerage Availability BSGLX
Allowab (non-advisory)
Fidelity Institutional FundsNetwork
Cetera Advisor Networks LLC
Morgan Stanley Select UMA
Cetera Advisor Networks LLC- PAM, PRIME, Premier
Raymond James
Cetera Advisors LLC- PAM, PRIME, Premier
Raymond James WRAP Eligible
Cetera Financial Specialists LLC- Premier
Schwab All (Retail, Instl, Retirement)
Commonwealth (PPS Access Program)
Schwab Institutional
Commonwealth (PPS/Advisory)
Schwab Institutional Only
Commonwealth Universe
TD Ameritrade Institutional

Retirement Planning (starting in your 20's):
planning/retirement

A recent survey from T. Rowe Price finds that health care costs are the top spending concern of retirees. This comes as no surprise as some studies predict that a 65-year-old couple may need up to $400,000 to cover health care costs in retirement. But these estimates don’t provide an accurate picture of what most retirees will encounter.
Such daunting numbers give an impression that it will be difficult for most retirees to afford health care in retirement. We believe that planning for health care costs in retirement can be made simpler by using the available assets and income retirees have. But we need to approach calculating health care costs differently.
When trying to plan for future health care expenses in retirement, consider these three things:

TRPrice Study:
https://troweprice.com/breaking-down-health-care-expenses-in-retirement

I ran these two funds (I changed VOO to VFINX) to allow PV (portfoliovisualizer) to go back to 2002. I included VWINX and PRWCX to further compare a withdrawal strategy over the last 19 years. I used a 6% withdrawal rate (pretty aggressive) for each of the 19 years to compare the income generation each fund would provide and their suitability as a long term investment for capital preservation and income.
Interesting results (click on Comparison between):
Comparison between VFINX, VTI, PRWCX, and VWINX
My observations:
Comparing these four funds from 2002-2021 provides insight into why allocation funds are so beneficial for both income and capital preservation. Both VWINX and PRWCX navigated the Tech Bubble and the Great Recession preserving capital while at the same time providing greater yearly withdrawal amounts than either of the etfs.
It took 14 years for both (VOO) VFINX and VTI to overtake VWINX. From 2002 - 2016 VWINX outperformed VTI and VOO (VFINX) on a rolling return basis. PRWCX accomplished this feat every year (2002-2021) providing both more income per year as well as higher yearly portfolio balances.
Future Consideration:
From the perspective of both income and capital preservation, would an investor be less harmed (opportunity cost risk verses sequence of return risk) owning VWINX verses an Total Equity Market Index?
At the start of retirement or the start of one's investment career, I would consider owning an allocation fund such as VWINX or PRWCX and consider reallocationg into VOO or VTI when markets periodically sell off.

stillers: "100% bond OEF Investors seem more than capable of justifying TO THEMSELVES that their strategy is a worthy one. Using Dick as an example though is one of the more creative ones, but does little to convince me that what they're doing remotely resembles "smart" investing."
No one on this thread, including me, are attempting to "convince" you of anything. You are an individual investor, who has your own idea of what is "smart", but the point in using capecod in this discussion about "should equity exposure decrease in retirement" is simply that he does not use equities in his retirement investing. He has stated many times that he avoids equities because he considers them "too speculative". There are many different ways to be a successful investor in retirement, whether you use equities or not. Retired investors vary tremendously from one retiree to another, they have many varied goals and objectives as a retiree, and what is appropriate for one retiree my not be appropriate for another retiree.