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)?

Dec 18 Episode:

GM's Subscription Base Service:
gm-aims-to-build-netflix-sized-subscription-business-by-2030

Re: BRUFX. Bruce:
Bruce Fund (called rep on 12/17 and received the following info which is tentative):
ordinary income -$9.7481
ST CG -$1.9481
LT CG - $50.2761
**********************************************
JUST POSTED on 17 Dec. to my wife's IRA, but still pending. I did not look at the per-share amounts. The "split," I mean.

I was sure Chartwell sounded familiar. Finally found the thread. Chartwell grew its fund business by acquiring Berwyn funds in 2016. It appears that prior to that it had been offering only two funds itself, though it was managing portions of two Vanguard funds and providing other advisory services.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/25497/the-berwyn-funds-reorganizing-to-be-part-of-chartwell-investment-partners
In late 2016, Vanguad fired Chartwell. Vanguard accounted for 1/4 of its AUM.
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Vanguard-fires-Chartwell-of-Berwyn-whose-owner-kills-deal-with-Philly-investor.html

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1697268/000158064221005921/chartwell497.htm
(see link for table of changes)

"Ckucking" back in. GGSOX -6.7 % for 3months from 12/16
+19.2 for 5 years " "
GPROX -6% For 3 months as of 12/16
+18.4 for 5 years
Looking to buy more on the dip after distributions

I am not trying to dissuade anybody from buying the new fund. Here are my random thoughts, FWIW -
M* chart shows GUSYX has lost 11.65% in the last one month, giving a year to date total return of 16.2%. GPGEX, a fifth global fund from the same shop, evidently is a sister fund to GPRIX (Global Reach), which has lost about 8% in the past one month. GUSYX and GPRIX occupy the same style box. Traditionally, at the beginning of an economic cycle, small-mid caps have done well but late cycle usually has not been so kind to them.
Three of their existing Global funds have similar performance - Global Contrarian fund looks decidedly different.
I own both the international (GISYX) and US (GUSYX) stalwart funds. I am sure GPRIX is not the same as the Stalwart funds (M* shows materially different P/E ratios notwithstanding the same style box) but I will sit GPGEX out. If I want more of a similar investing style, given I already have enough GP, I might checkout Wasatch.
M* shows all the Global funds open to new investors and GPRIX has $400+M in AUM.

I have several of GP Funds. While some of the best stock ideas are being shared among the GP fund managers, each fund manager has the final decision in purchasing/selling a stock. Also, each fund has different mandates from the others. For example, the Global Micro Cap Fund is not the same as the Global Reach Fund, but some of the Global Micro Cap stock suggestions have been utilized in the Global Reach Fund, but not all of them. Similarly, Global Micro Fund may have some picks that are shared with the International Opportunities/Global Opportunities Funds, but not all of Global Micro Cap stock ideas are utilized.
For example, compare USNQX and NASDX. While both are based on the Nasdaq 100 benchmark, why aren't both funds performing the same (fund expenses are slightly different from each other)? Currently, USNQX has a lower expense ratio (.44%) than NASDX's expense ratio (.50%) but NASDX has a better YTD return than USNQX (from Google Finance). Years ago, NASDX performed better than USNQX. Then for several years, USNQX performed better. For the last year or two, NASDX has performed better than USNQX. Same can be said for S&P 500 funds (fund expenses are slightly different) as to why aren't they performing more in synch while utilizing the same benchmark
Second, Wasatch and GP have similar tendencies in closing their funds to keep them nimble. Since the GP managers learned Wasatch's management practices, they are probably being used similarly in GP's practices. I would hate to miss out on a fund that is closed for 5-10 years waiting for it to re-open.
Disclosure: I own the Global Micro Cap (in taxable and non-taxable accounts) and Contrarian funds, Global & International Opportunities funds, Emerging Opportunities, and Global & International Stalwarts. Thinking about a position in the US Stalwarts Fund.

AS for AUM of 35 MILLION. I believe their micro fund closed at 20 or 25 million.
Sometimes smaller AUM is to your advantage . I dislike making a buy ,watching it rise , only to be able to get out with a few bucks of profit after a stead decline !!
HOT money , not for me, Derf

Good point BaluBalu. It's like, why even bother opening this fund if you're already capacity-constrained in other funds. Good boutique fund company, but the apparent overlap in all their funds is concerning to me. It reminds me a little of what Royce funds did 10-15 years ago.
FWIW. I've owned GPGOX since inception and have been very happy with it. For many years it was my only SC investment.
Can anyone with more than a couple Grandeur Peak funds chime in as to why? Maybe it is beneficial to own multiple, but why?