For most investors, the main news of significance is the merger and lowering of ERs for the retail Target Retirement Funds. The Institutional Target Retirement Funds really are for institutions only. And the Target Retirement Income and Growth Trust is structured as a collective investment trust (CIT) "available to eligible defined contribution plans."
Here's the Vanguard page for VITRX (including the glide path for the institutional series). The Vanguard page for the corresponding acquiring fund, VTINX, can be found here.
A recent M* writeup of the Vanguard retail series TDFs.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1027981/vanguards-fine-target-date-retirement-series
Generally speaking, the institutional series use institutional (or admiral) class shares of underlying funds, while the retail series use the investor class^* shares of funds.
[* Though Vanguard closed investor class shares of index funds to retail investors when it lowered the admiral class min to $3K, it continues using the more expensive investor class shares in its funds of funds.]
By switching investor share classes of some of the retail series' underlying funds to institutional/admiral shares, retail investors will see a reduction in cost. But that won't have any effect on the 0.09% ER of the institutional series. I don't know what magic Vanguard has in mind to reduce this down to 0.08%.

The merger is expected to reduce the overall expense ratio to 8 basis points. The investor share-priced expense ratio has been 12 basis points, while the institutional expense ratio has been 9 basis points, [a Vanguard spokeswoman] wrote.

https://www.pionline.com/defined-contribution/vanguard-merges-target-date-series-lowers-fees

@Old_Joe,
I think I have 14 shares and a fraction in total. I am sure I picked up the 98% of them when I first purchased it with a $250 initial investment. I am sitting on a huge amount of capital gains but I am not going to sell it. I think I will wait until I see a split or huge pullback on it.

A different and more readable Section 138311 in the House document @msf cited says:
"this section prohibits all employee after-tax contributions in qualified plans and prohibits after-tax IRA contributions from being converted to Roth regardless of income level, effective for distributions, transfers, and contributions made after December 31, 2021." [Emphasis mine.]
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/SubtitleISxS.pdf
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/congress-is-about-to-kill-this-popular-retirement-tax-move-11632861718

This shows that there's more than price or profits that go into deciding when to sell.
As I recall, you were far from alone in reacting this way. So don't take the following data as a personal comment, or as something one could have predicted. Hindsight is great, but it only works for the past.
As of May 31, 2015, TPINX held 10 Ukrainian government or agency bonds with a face value of $2.919M, and a market value of $1.425M. That was 2.1% of the fund's assets. (In TTRCX these represented 1.6% of the fund's assets.)
Three months later, August 31, 2015, those same bonds (none were bought or sold) had a market value of $2.145M (50% appreciation), and now represented 3.5% of the fund.
Ukraine was in trouble, and what happened that November was that the bonds were swapped:

Ukraine’s other bondholders, led by Franklin Templeton, accepted a 20 percent principal writedown, a coupon increase to 7.75 percent, a four-year maturity extension and GDP warrants - additional annual payments linked to Ukraine’s future economic growth.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-debt/ukraine-completes-debt-restructuring-of-around-15-billion-idUSKCN0T12FT20151112
The haircut was on the face value, which had been way above the market value. So the fund wasn't hurt by this. After the swap, as of Nov 30, 2015, the replacement bonds and warrants had a market value of $2.831M, and constituted 4.8% of the portfolio.
As a M* analyst put it,

Hasenstab has also shown a willingness to buy what the rest of the market shuns: He loaded up on Irish bonds in the depths of the 2011 eurozone crisis and swooped in on even shakier Hungarian debt that same year. In early 2014, he added to the fund's single-digit stake in dollar-denominated Ukrainian bonds, a move that hurt throughout [2014] but paid off during the first nine months of 2015.

Looking at the holdings rather than the price, ISTM that taking flyers (even 5% positions) in distressed debt was not unusual. But the nearly total, long term move into purely EM debt in the mid 2010s was a fundamental shift. For me, that's what met observant1's third criterion for reevaluation: "Significant investment strategy modifications"

While @rono is a familiar and most welcome poster to us oldsters, newbies to the board during the past decade may not fully appreciate his experience and knowledge on this subject. In the days of MFO’s predecessor, Fund Alarn, rono regularly posted a daily early morning edition called “Asia and the Metals” summarizing recent developments in those areas along with point-on perspectives. Always a class act.
Personally, I’ve long held alternative type investments / inflation hedges which include a 1-3% exposure to a mining fund. That’s in addition to significant exposure to PRPFX which was earlier discussed. I don’t mind saying that even in picking my entry points carefully over the past 12-18 months I’ve ‘had my “bell rung” on the miners. The action over the past 6 months or so simply stinks. Likely some of the carnage stems from the “big boys” (hedge funds, etc) strategically pushing around the metal (playing both long and short) in what is a very thinly traded market and also trying to spook smaller investors and gain an edge. Rono mentions buying / selling by sovereign banks. And there’s the strong dollar plus the current crypto craze.
The thing to keep in mind is that the precious metals and miners can turn on a dime. It’s not unheard of for prices of either to double in a year or two - though the downside can be just as extreme. I suspect at some not too distant stage the precious metals will again be in vogue. All markets in recent years appear much more prone to running to the extremes along with public sentiment . Likely many have over-shot on both the up side and down side since the ‘07-‘09 crash. So, I continue to hold to a roughly 2% position in the p/m miners.

I sold TTRCX in 6/2015 when I discovered a sizeable allocation to Ukrainian debt, which scared the **** out of me ! At that point, return of capital outweighed return on capital . ( Templeton A shares still carried loads then)

There's a difference between liquidating a fund position because one has lost faith in the fund and adjusting the holding because of performance. (Part of the original question included the example: "sell 25% of holding for each 20% gain in a year".)
Performance based adjustments can be done mechanically, based on one's target allocations.
I generally concur with observant1's approach, though I'm more inclined to let a "loser" ride longer, say three years. How much history I use depends on how the fund is managed.
If a fund has a distinctive style, I'll tend to give it more slack. One reason is that it would be difficult to replace. Another more important reason is that because of its style, it may be more likely to do better, or worse, over extended (multi-year) periods.

---

Here's a good exercise, given that "everyone" thinks M* should have downgraded TPINX before now. When would you have sold it, and why?
The fund had great years through 2010, so let's look at the past decade. Here's a M* page with that data. Pay attention to the benchmark index (world gov bond index) rather than the category returns since the fund was not in that category until recently.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=TPINX
In relative terms it was only in 2017 that performance began to fall apart. While it beat its index by 2½% in 2018, it underperformed substantially in 2017 (-5%+), 2019 (-5%+), and hugely in 2020 (-14½%).
After its great 2012, in 2013 and 2014 the fund returned very little (2%, 1½%). Would you have sold even though on a relative basis it did great (2013) and average (2014)?
Would you have sold at the end of 2015 after those two low return years followed by 2015 when the fund landed squarely in the middle of the pack and fell just short of its benchmark?
Surely you would not have sold after 2016, which was a fine year (6%+ vs 1.6% for its benchmark).
Would you have sold after 2017 which was the first really clear bad year on a relative basis? Or would you have waited to see what would happen?
If you did wait, would you have felt comforted by the 2018 performance when the fund again beat most of its peers and beat its benchmark by over 2%? Or would you have looked at the absolute performance of 1.27% and said to yourself: this is even worse than 2017 where it returned just 2.35%. I don't care about relative performance, I'm out?
After 2019's relative disaster, would you have called it quits, perhaps because two of the previous three years (2017, 2019) were very bad (each 5%+ under the benchmark)?
Or would you have waited for two successive bad years relative to its benchmark? It took until 2019-2020 for that to happen.

SOXL QQQ or Asml could be good for intermediate to long term. Been trading these recently with good gains
Held QQQ since 2012 very happy with it
May add more ASML tomorrow/maybe on sale

Green today:
XOM +1.05%
CVX +0.38%
XLE +0.34%
IOFIX +0.17%
TOTL +0.04%
FLOT +0.04%
Freed up some cash today via sales of bond OEFs.
ADDing to some US & Foreign stock/allocation funds tomorrow & Thursday.
Disclaimer: Not sure if I'll be a Dipper or Diplet, or both.

No comment... even I am speechless for a change- just the link:
➤ Link to NPR article

+1

+1 My interest in JEPI is that I can sell anytime without incurring transaction fees. JHQAX is probably a better investment, but I just don't want to wait 60 days to sell it !

Here is a 9/27/21 analysis of ASML:
https://www.investors.com/research/stocks-to-watch-asml-ready-for-new-breakout-after-big-rally/

OJ, you'll be fine with this holding. Their technology remains in a good place for global demand.
ASML competition
ASML held by ETF's
5 year chart Down 10.2% this week, so a decent buy time, IMHO, for a company that is not going away any time soon.
ASML another chart.... click the 200 day icon for other range choices

Good luck @Old_Joe. Interesting pick. I'm reading the drop today was due to some of the research houses moving their recommendations from buy to neutral. Who knows why other than the stock looks like it has had a steady trend up. May be time for a rest.
To your point, I find the getting-out decision harder than the buy. I made a bad sell move on Apple back in 2014-15. It's probably up 500% since. I still play just for the fun of it, but I'm convinced I can't do better than a straight up ETF like QQQ.
I'm glad to hear you are dipping you toes back into equities!

Interesting posts. Being an extremely timid investor, I may start my position with 1 share tomorrow !

+1 sven An example is JHQAX which lost 1.73% today compared to its etf version JEPI which lost 1.41% Sold all my JHQAX holdings tonight and will make future purchases using JEPI .

More on ASML : https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/09/15/is-it-too-late-to-buy-asml-stock/

The commodity price surge is getting my attention. It feels to me to be too soon to sound an alarm. But there seems to be an increasing amount of smoke in the air. Just how long does "transitory" last?

The world economy is facing a buildup in stagflationary forces as surging energy prices boost inflation and slow the recovery from the pandemic recession.
“We’re seeing all of this inflation,” Supriya Menon, a strategist at Pictet & Cie. told Bloomberg TV. “Ultimately how does that get resolved? Part of the way it could get resolved is through demand destruction.”
Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey highlighted the conundrum when he drew attention to the limits of monetary policy to deal with some of the factors causing higher consumer prices.
“The shocks that we are seeing are restricting supply in the economy relative to the recovery of demand,” he said Monday in speech. “This is important because monetary policy will not increase the supply of semi-conductor chips, it will not increase the amount of wind (no, really).”

Stagflationary Blow