The SEC requires disclosure of portfolio managers' ownership in the following ranges: none, $1–$10,000, $10,001–$50,000, $50,001–$100,000, $100,001–$500,000, $500,001–$1 million, and over $1 million.
Unless managers with more than $1 million invested in funds publicly reveal a specific amount or threshold, it may be difficult to ascertain this information.

That makes sense, David.
Since there seems to be keen interest in this fund on this board, do we know what is the max any current manager has invested in the fund? M* says more than a million dollars, which does not impress me as I think that would be less than 1 yr of compensation for each of the managers. M* reports from SAI. I would like to see 3-5 yrs of annual compensation before putting any positive weight on managers’ economic participation. I get that having too much of managers’ wealth could be a detriment too but 3-5 years of annual comp is not too much, given a lot investors put 5-10% of their wealth in a fund.
P.S.: I have never invested in this fund but am open to investing in it, not withstanding its misadventures in 2015-16.

These vary greatly in quality week-to-week. This one’s pretty decent. Rick Rieder of Blackrock, makes a point I’ve been mulling for some time: The issues that might tank the economy this time around are unique in that they relate to “not enough supply” rather than “not enough demand.” Demand from consumers is high, but labor shortages, materials shortages, supply chain issues, etc are restraining the economy.
(If Bloomberg had 3 or 4 other contributors as good as Rieder, the show might be worthy of its 1970s-90s namesake.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-09-11/wall-street-week-full-show-09-10-2021-video

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

Yahoo reports FXAIX's median market cap as $186.1B vs. the $32.1B figure reported by S&P for the underlying S&P 500 index. Given Yahoo's "non-standard" use of median (which it doesn't define), it makes you wonder what other terms Yahoo is fooling around with.
S&P uses what you call the "standard" definition of mean. But it seems to be the only one calculating the S&P 500 average market cap this way. While it reports an average of $79.9B, the S&P 500 index funds reporting give their average market cap as over $500B.
It makes one wonder what other terms the whole fund industry (not just Vanguard) is fooling around with. Or in the alternative, whether S&P is the one out of step in how it calculates a portfolio's average market cap. Because it seems that the standard way of calculating a portfolio's aggregate statistics is to weight its holdings.
A few sample figures for S&P 500 index fund average market caps:
Fidelity FXAIX - $539.7B (June)
Vanguard VFIAX - $543.1B (June)
Franklin SBSPX - $545.9B (July)
iShares WFSPX $608.4B (August)
Schwab goes these funds one better, by giving two very different figures:
$518.7B in its April 30, 2021 semi annual report, where it labels this a weighted average, and
$204.8B on its fund's webpage (July 31, 2021).
Since Schwab doesn't say that this figure is weighted, surely that must mean that this average is unweighted? No, it's weighted also, but it's calculated using a "non-standard" formula.
Is Vanguard really the one that is playing fast and loose with figures?

My rough formula for capacity starts with the smallest firm that they would like to include in the portfolio. Currently, that's Rolls Royce. You don't want to own more than 5% of the float or you become a controlling owner, which complicates the manager's life. So 5% of Rolls is $600 million in stock. If you want a concentrated portfolio (and they do), I multiple the maximum size of their smallest firm's holding by the target number of companies in the portfolio. $600M x 30 = $18B.
That's rough because (1) there can be other constraints on the managers in terms of their internal capacity, (2) part of the strategy capacity can be committed to SMAs or other vehicles, and (3) the managers could choose to underweight their smaller companies. I tend not to make the latter assumption with concentrated go-anywhere portfolios because it's equally likely that they would want to overweight the smallest firm.
When we publish a fund's strategy capacity, it's almost always based on a conversation with the adviser who sometimes (Grandeur Peak) has it down to the dollar and other times, they just laugh and exclaim "as if!"
If you're smallest firm is $100B and you're targeting 50 names, this particular match does give you effectively unlimited strategy capacity: $250 billion or so.
For what that's worth,
David

Here’s a related article. More complete than what Forsyth’s article contains (Forsyth was trying to cover too many bases in one piece.)
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/banking/2021/09/09/dallas-fed-ceo-robert-kaplan-traded-millions-in-stocks-like-apple-tesla-in-2020/
Excerpted
“Dallas Fed president Robert Kaplan to sell off his holdings in stocks like Apple, Tesla and Amazon”
“The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas pledged Thursday to sell his holdings in individual stocks such as Apple, Tesla and Amazon by Sept. 30 after his trades totaling millions of dollars in 2020 became public this week. Kaplan and Boston Fed president Eric Rosengren released near-identical statements about their plans to divest their stock portfolios and reinvest in either diversified indexed funds or keep the proceeds as cash. In Kaplan’s case, his trades last year came while he was voting on critical monetary policy for the U.S. during the pandemic.”
“Kaplan, 64, was a voting member of the 12-member policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee last year. The committee rotates the policy-deciding votes among regional bank heads each year. This year, he’s not a voting member. That means he attends the eight yearly FOMC meetings and contributes to discussions but can’t vote. Rosengreen, a voting member this year, listed stakes in four separate real estate investment trusts and disclosed multiple purchases and sales in those and other securities last year. There is precedent for Kaplan and other Fed Presidents to trade stocks while serving on the committee.”
*** This story’s a bit hard to access. But clearing cookies or trying a different browser should work.

(we know how to define median) ... (Vanguard probably doesn't know how to define median.)
Vanguard knows how to define median and gives its definition right on its website:

median market capitalization

---

An indicator of the size of companies in which a fund invests; the midpoint of market capitalization (market price x shares outstanding) of a fund’s stocks, weighted by the proportion of the fund’s assets invested in each stock. Stocks representing half of the fund’s assets have market capitalizations above the median, and the rest are below it.

https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/Glossary?Term=medianmarketcapitalization
Vanguard weights a fund's holdings when calculating its median market cap, just as Vanguard weights a fund's holdings when calculating its mean.
Do we really all know how to define these terms? How about average market cap? For the S&P 500, Fidelity FXAIX reports $539.7B (June 30), M* FXAIX reports $204.8B (July 31), and S&P reports $79.9B (Aug 31). They can't all be right, or can they?
S&P is reporting an unweighted arithmetic mean, Fidelity is reporting a weighted arithmetic mean, and M* is reporting a weighted geometric mean.
S&P 500 fact sheet: navigate to sheet from this page.
Fidelity FXAIX quarterly fund review.
M* portfolio page for FXAIX.
M* definition of average market cap as weighted geometric mean
Getting back to fund median market cap. The Fidelity quarterly report for FXAIX gives both the weighted and unweighted medians: $187.6B and $30.2B respectively. S&P gives "the" median as $32.1B (it's two months more recent than Fidelity's figure). That's a spread not much different from the Vanguard discrepancy.
It's best to be careful when comparing apples and oranges before declaring one of them wrong.

If anybody feels knowledgeable enough, I’d appreciate your explanation / opinions on the “liquidity” issue Randall Forsyth mentions briefly in the Sept. 13 Barron’s. The debt part I understand. But the liquidity part is what I’m not fully reeling in.
Here’s Forsyth’s final paragraph:
“As a result of the past 20 years’ policies, America's public debt is one-quarter larger than the economy, versus a little more than half of gross domestic product in the third quarter of 2001. At the same time, the Fed's assets—mainly U.S. Treasury securities—have grown more than 11-fold, to over $8.3 trillion. As a result, the financial system has become so overstuffed with liquidity that more than $1.1 trillion is parked at the Fed's overnight reverse-repurchase facility. Who could have foreseen this two decades ago?”
-
As investors, we like to have liquidity. It allows us to move from one position to another easily or take advantage of opportunities that arise. No? So why is having too much of it dangerous to the economy?

Barrons link: [paywall?]
https://www.barrons.com/amp/articles/will-the-stock-market-climb-or-drop-10-heres-one-trade-to-handle-both-scenarios-51631291769

Like series I savings bonds, series EE savings bonds cannot be redeemed until a year after purchase. Between one and five years, you lose the last three months of interest if you cash out. No penalty after five years.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ebonds/res_e_bonds_eeredeem.htm#when
With EE series savings bonds, there's another implicit penalty. For savings bonds held 20 years, the value of the bond is adjusted to twice its purchase price. Using the rule of 72, that's an annual rate of approximately 72/20 = 3.6%.
But if you cash out earlier, you'll earn just the stated rate on the savings bonds. For newly purchased EE savings bonds, that's a piddly 0.10%. So you "lose" 3.5% in interest annually if you sell before waiting 20 years.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ebonds/res_e_bonds_eeratesandterms_eebondsissued052005andafer.htm#buy

Randall’s been off a couple weeks. Really in form in the Sept 13 issue of Barron’s. Leads off with Derick Jeter’s admission to the Baseball “Hall of Fame”. Next, Forsyth bemoans that similar honors have been denied baseball legends Barry Bonds (for steroid related crimes) and Pete Rose (for betting on games he was managing). From there Forsyth pivots into a couple apparent “conflicts of interest” by two fed officials who are (or have been) instrumental in setting monetary policy.
Brief excerpt:
“However, in this age of legalized gambling, down to having betting windows at Wrigley Field, Rose's ban looks ridiculous, wrote Chicago Sun Times columnist Steve Greenberg this year. Assuming that everybody in the stands and betting on their phones from home have access to the same information, they can lose their money fair and square. Compare that to the actions permitted for Federal Reserve Bank presidents. This past week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan actively traded stocks last year. And Bloomberg disclosed much the same about Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren, whose favored investments included estate investment trusts, a highly interest-rate-sensitive sector. Both said they had complied with their respective bank's code of conduct.”
Where are the markets headed? Forsyth isn’t sure. In a reference to Broadway’s Hamilton he says that if you’re not “In the room where it happens“ (a backhanded reference to the Fed officials) you’re at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to managing your own money.
LOL
Source: Up and Down Wall Street - Stocks Could Soon Correct. Or not. by Randall W Forsyth
(Taken from print edition. If you can locate an online version of Forsyth’s column please link it.)

https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/overview/VDADX/portfolio-holdings
BaluBalu - Sorry, to make a long story short, the median market cap of VDADX is not $169B. It is about $13B. The Vanguard data page is wrong - no surprise.
The reason that M* did not discuss differences between the medians of the two indices is that they are not, in fact, very different, and that (again) the Vanguard data page is wrong,
If you go to the link above, you will see that the mutual fund VDADX holds 247 holdings. Half of 247 is about 123. So if you page forward, 30 stocks at a time, until you see stocks #ing 120 - 150, and take the 123 stock (Whirlpool [WHR] or Hasbro [HAS]; 3rd or 4th from the top, doesn't really matter), you can look up their market caps.
I did look it up. Vanguard (effectively) did not.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/WHR/
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HAS/
Yahoo links above. According to Yahoo, the market cap of WHR is $13.528B, and HAS is $13.496B. Roughly $13.5B.
According to page 3 of the S&P (we-know-how-to-define-median) factsheet, the median market cap of their index is $13.322B, as of 08-31-21.
So, the VDADX median market cap (at $13.5B) is close enough to the S&P new-index median (at $13.3B). Again, the Vanguard median market cap info is wrong. (Vanguard probably doesn't know how to define median.)
If you don't know the definition for median, you might want to apply for a position at Vanguard, since they won't care if you know or not. If you'd like a definition of median, see below.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/median.asp
PS: Makes you wonder about what else is wrong on the Vanguard page, doesn't it?

According to M*, the fund has 10% cash, 11% utility. Quite defensive. He is in good position when the market pulls back.
https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/prwcx/portfolio

It is a large cap growth fund with $5B AUM. It can grow 10 fold before I would worry about capacity constraints. It has had net outflows for each of the past 9 years. If it reaches capacity constraints in the next 10 years means the fund becomes enormously successful, a good problem to have.

Here is the PRWCX portfolio as of 8/31/2021 from the TRP website.
Portfolio
$52.23 billion
Total Net Assets as of 8/31/2021
Asset
Allocation
Domestic Stock
68.90%
Other
28.00%
Domestic Bond
1.40%
Foreign Stock
0.90%
Convertibles
0.80%
Top 10 Holdings 8/31/2021
Microsoft
6.90%
Amazon.com
5.70%
GE
4.43%
Alphabet Class C
3.29%
Danaher
3.24%
Marsh & McLennan
3.16%
PNC Financial Services Group
3.12%
Yum! Brands
3.07%
UnitedHealth Group
3.02%
Thermo Fisher Scientific
2.78%

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

Thanks @Observant1. I still can not get over that the median market cap of the current index is $169B (Vanguard port page) while that of the new index is $13B (bottom of page 3 of fact sheet at https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/strategy/sp-us-dividend-growers-index/#overview). M*'s examination of change in index did not mention about the median constituent cap size or sector allocation differences.

M* examines the new indexes for Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index (VIG) and Vanguard International Dividend Appreciation Index (VIGI).
Link

From SPGlobal.com -
"The S&P U.S. Dividend Growers Index is designed to measure the performance of U.S. companies that have followed a policy of consistently increasing dividends every year for at least 10 consecutive years. The index excludes the top 25% highest-yielding eligible companies from the index."
The benchmark index used prior to the change to SPGlobal does not appear to have such an exclusion. https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/Methodology_DVG.pdf
https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/Index/Overview/DVG
I wondered how the differences in methodologies might effect the composition of the fund as a result of the change. The median market cap appear to go from $169B (Vanguard Portfolio page) to $13B - that is way too drastic change and I wish somebody checks me on this to make sure I have not goofed up. Weight of top 10 components does not change much (goes down from 31.5% to 30.5%) - i.e., well diversified (expect that from Vanguard). Dividend yield does not appear to change much - goes from 1.85% (M* info) to 1.74% - there are probably calc differences to call the 11 basis points a material difference, without digging in further.
VDADX short term and long term total return performances appear not impressive. There seem to be large blend funds from Vanguard that have much better performance and not attracted as much AUM as VDADX ($64B). What is the attraction of VDADX as a large blend fund? Can not possibly be the current dividend yield of 1.75%.