I'm afraid I was a bit simplistic in saying that this was merely moving the funds from the Mairs and Powers Trust to a larger trust that already holds funds of various families.
While funds operate similarly whether organized as trusts or as corporations, it may be better to think in terms of the corporate model because people may be more familiar with that.
A corporation has shareholders who invest money, and a board of directors (analogous to a board of trustees) who have ultimate responsibility for the company and who answer to the shareholders. In order to run a conventional company, a board hires and oversees corporate officers. In the case of a fund (or series of funds), a board similarly hires investment advisory firms while retaining responsibility for the fund(s).
See this thread for examples of what can happen when the board fails to carry out its oversight responsibilities:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/58326/infinity-q-capital-management-plans-to-return-500-million-to-mutual-fund-investors
The current M&P board has five trustees, four of whom are independent including the Chair. The independent trustees are paid between $85K and $100K depending upon responsibilities (e.g. the independent Chair receives $100K). That is to oversee 3 funds run by one advisory firm.
The new trust (Trust for Professional Managers) currently has three trustees, two of whom are independent; the Chair is not an independent trustee. The two independent trustees are projected to be paid between $94.5K and $97K of which $1800 (for each) will come from the three M&P funds combined. That is to oversee approximately 27 funds from several families run by several advisory firms.
As noted in the M&P proxy, the new trust will be adding four unnamed trustees. Well, unnamed in the M&P proxy. The new trust has its own proxy where the nominees are named. And shareholders of the three M&P funds being absorbed will not have a say. Only shareholders of funds in the trust as of February 7th get a vote.
The trustees of the current M&P trust all have at least $100K invested in each of the three M&P funds (except for one trustee who has not invested in one of the three funds). The trustees of the new trust have no investments in any of the 24 funds they oversee.
Will any of this make a difference? Probably not. Being barred from the vote on trustees who will more than double the size of the board doesn't matter, since retail investors' votes can't influence these elections anyway. (And the nominees are running unopposed.) The timing just doesn't feel right, though.
New M&P prospectus draft (April [] 2022), including SAI
Trust for Professional Managers (new trust) proxy to elect four additional trustees
----
Purely by luck, I ran across the fact that a couple of funds (SNOAX, SNWAX) recently left the new trust (Trust For Professional Managers). The management firm (Snow Capital Management) was acquired by Easterly, which you may recognize as James Alpha. Apparently Easterly wanted to move those funds into its own James Alpha Trust. In a sense, the opposite of what M&P is doing. Previously, James Alpha had moved its own funds out of the Saratoga Advantage Trust into its James Alpha Trust.
Worth noting (see 2nd link below) is that one sees the same rationale (cost savings) given, whether it is moving funds into a conglomerate-like trust (as with M&P) or spinning out a family into its own trust (as with James Alpha). The third link is the actual proxy for the James Alpha spinoff where one can read the rationales in detail. There the projected savings (16-21 basis points) was significant, as compared with one basis point for the M&P move.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418921005185/snowsupplement497e8-2021.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/924628/000158064221000599/jamesalpha425.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1829774/000158064221000287/jaftn14a.htm

MSF link explains it clearly "Historically, the United States has been a net importer of petroleum. During 2020, COVID-19 mitigation efforts caused a drop in oil demand within the United States and internationally. International petroleum prices decreased in response to less consumption, which diminished incentives for key petroleum-exporting countries to increase production. This shift allowed the United States to export more petroleum in 2020 than it had in the past.'"
This FORBES story is a decent if not simplistic summary of the conflict and how it affects the US. I suspect that most Americans are not aware of how much oil is imported from Russia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2022/02/21/russia-is-a-major-supplier-of-oil-to-the-us/

Most of the reports like Mark linked are based on 2020 numbers. This was a historic year and the US exported more oil than it imported. However, from what I read - in 2021 this changed and the US is back to importing more oil than it exports. Most forecasts say this trend will continue in 2022 where the US will import more oil than it exports. In 2021, there was a 20% rise in imports. Something to note.

Don't like to jump around, but losing my confidence in Int'l fund managers. Hold VWILX and MGGPX. Thinking of reducing positions and adding to VTSAX, a smoother ride. These guys did weather 2020 pretty well, but are getting beat up now. Stay the course? Thoughts needed!! Thanks!

If that's the route you want to go, make sure you get the cheapest version of that strategy. I'm not familiar with funds like that, but I would check if there is any variation in how they constitute the entire domestic market.

Thanks for the heads up! VTSAX is my largest holding. The rate is something cheap like .03 or .04. I dunno, I guess it's wise to keep some int'l for diversification.

I find it easier to stick to things i understand. In the past I have bought things "because" of some reason or another. And I don't do that so much anymore. There are funds out there that do for international what VTSAX does for domestic. Maybe some percentage of an international market fund would suit you better.

Don't like to jump around, but losing my confidence in Int'l fund managers. Hold VWILX and MGGPX. Thinking of reducing positions and adding to VTSAX, a smoother ride. These guys did weather 2020 pretty well, but are getting beat up now. Stay the course? Thoughts needed!! Thanks!

If that's the route you want to go, make sure you get the cheapest version of that strategy. I'm not familiar with funds like that, but I would check if there is any variation in how they constitute the entire domestic market.

Thanks for the heads up! VTSAX is my largest holding. The rate is something cheap like .03 or .04. I dunno, I guess it's wise to keep some int'l for diversification.

Don't like to jump around, but losing my confidence in Int'l fund managers. Hold VWILX and MGGPX. Thinking of reducing positions and adding to VTSAX, a smoother ride. These guys did weather 2020 pretty well, but are getting beat up now. Stay the course? Thoughts needed!! Thanks!

If that's the route you want to go, make sure you get the cheapest version of that strategy. I'm not familiar with funds like that, but I would check if there is any variation in how they constitute the entire domestic market.

In May 2020 it was announced that Mr Beini Zhou ex-Matthews was going to run a SCV fund for Artisan. Does it normally take two years to get a fund up and running?

M* article from Auguat, 2021, https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1056134/capital-groups-fashionably-late-entry-to-the-etf-party
"Capital Group, the parent of American Funds, expects to introduce its first suite of exchange-traded funds early next year. According to preliminary prospectus filings on Aug. 24, 2021, the firm will launch six actively managed, transparent ETFs in the latter half of 2022's first quarter: fixed-income strategy Capital Group Core Plus Income CGCP; U.S.-centric equity mandates Capital Group Growth CGGR, Capital Group Core Equity CGUS, and Capital Group Dividend Value CGDV; and international/global equity strategies Capital Group Global Growth Equity CGGO and Capital Group International Focus CGXU....."

The fund family notorious for funds with loads pushed through RIAs, will be launching the subject ETFs tomorrow. I am just opening this thread for a discussion of those ETFs.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312522048733/d293939d485apos.htm
Excerpt:
Principal Investment Strategies
The Fund’s investment team employs a fundamental investment process to construct a diversified portfolio of securities of undervalued, primarily non-US small companies. The team seeks to invest in what the team considers to be high quality, undervalued companies with strong balance sheets and shareholder-oriented management teams.
The team’s investment process focuses on four key characteristics:
■Undervaluation—Determining the intrinsic value of a business is the heart of the team’s research process. The team believes that intrinsic value represents the amount that a buyer would pay to own a company’s future cash flows. The team seeks to invest at a significant discount to its estimate of the intrinsic value of a business.
■Business Quality—The team seeks to invest in companies with histories of generating strong free cash flow, improving returns on capital and strong competitive positions in their industries.
■Financial Strength—The team believes that investing in companies with strong balance sheets helps to reduce the potential for capital risk and provides company management the ability to build value when attractive opportunities are available.
■Shareholder-Oriented Management—The team’s research process attempts to identify management teams with a history of building value for shareholders.

Thanks for the input gang. Appreciate your wisdom. In 2020, I watched Heugh chart the meltdown with some strategic adds, including Zoom, Disney, etc. that paid off. I'm not really sure what he's doing now, but whatever it is, it's creating some current pain.

Don't like to jump around, but losing my confidence in Int'l fund managers. Hold VWILX and MGGPX. Thinking of reducing positions and adding to VTSAX, a smoother ride. These guys did weather 2020 pretty well, but are getting beat up now. Stay the course? Thoughts needed!! Thanks!

When a fund house (VG) can tumble from #3 to #43 in a year there’s something wrong with the gage being used.

When the cause of that decline is laid (in part) at the foot of VPMAX, there's more wrong than just the gauge.

Vanguard's drop occurred, in part, because of weaker relative performance in two of its three biggest funds, the $72 billion Vanguard PrimeCap (ticker: VPMAX) and the $59 billion Vanguard International Growth (VWILX).

At the end of 2020, the fund had $70B in assets (per quarterly filing), so its weighting didn't change much.
Its one year performance in 2020 put it at the 93rd percentile of LCG funds (per M*). Its one year performance in 2021 put it at the 88th percentile of LC Blend funds. M* changed its category in 2021, but its portfolio had been blend since 2018. If it had been ranked against LCG fund in 2021, it would have been ranked at the 54th percentile (same 2021 performance as BLYRX).
No matter how you slice it, Primecap's relative performance in 2021 matched if not exceeded its relative performance in 2020. So, rather than pulling Vanguard's 2021 ranking down, Primecap should have either had little effect or raised Vanguard's 2021 position. Poor performance both years, but slightly less poor from a ranking perspective in 2021.

@hank, sorry about the confusing title.
She questioned the possibility of recession. Given the last quarter's GDP of over 4%, it has to get much worse to go negative. She mentioned high inflation but did not elaborate consequences.
As for us, changes were made last year. They are bearing fruits now: rotated from growth to value funds (both US and oversea), added precious metal and commodity funds, moved bond funds to short duration bonds and TIPS, and cash. Otherwise, our portfolio is down modestly. Considering the market condition, it would be down even more.

Thanks for the nice summation. Being “down a bit” comes with the territory if you’re invested for capital appreciation / growth. I don’t mind being down a few % some years. Limiting losses is about the best one can hope for unless you go into cash or some types of fixed income. In 2008 I lost 21%. Hurt a bit. But time horizon was much longer then and made it up in subsequent years. Situation much different today. Age forces some of us to take less risk and protect against double-digit losses.

Mona, look up TDF retirement & their 2020 TDF. You could use one or the other or split the two. I believe the 2015 TDF is close to rolling into the Retirement fund. You will get tips also. I haven't checked Life Strategy allocation. The 34% cash maybe a problem to find a bench marking fund. If you combine cash & bonds as one , you could luck out & find one.
FWIW, Derf

From above post :
"A number of posters have referenced possibly investing 100% in their chosen benchmark fund. Not a bad idea. "
Had I done this , put 50 or 100 % in a TDF at Vanguard, I would have blown my fuse do to the LARGE cap gains that were issued for this tax year !
This subject was discuss about 2 months ago.
Enjoy your Sunday, Derf

It's impossible to keep track of all these series without a scorecard, and even then, I'm not sure.
Until 2013, T. Rowe Price offered an aggressive, but stable (unchanged glidepath) product, unlike its leading competitors, Vanguard and Fidelity.
2011 Ibbotoson Paper, Bait and Switch: Glide Path Instability

“In 2008 and 2009, there was increased interest in adjusting our glide path more conservatively,” said Jerome Clark, portfolio manager of T. Rowe Price’s retirement funds. “We avoid making glide path changes based upon short-term market environments, which is consistent with the message we communicate to our investors to stay the course when markets swing to extremes.”

https://www.investmentnews.com/target-date-glide-paths-are-unstable-at-some-major-plan-providers-37617
By 2013, T. Rowe Price and Vanguard had well outperformed Fidelity over the preceding five years because of their more aggressive glide paths. Consequently, Fidelity again changed its glidepath, bringing it in line with its competitors. It seems like a stretch to say that T. Rowe Price at the same time introduced a less aggressive line of funds because of loud complaints received years ago as it began multi-year run of superior results.

Still, it is notable that as of Aug. 22, [2013] T. Rowe Price launched new funds that recognize that some investors are more risk averse as a complement its core T. Rowe Price Retirement Funds, which had $88.1 billion in assets as of March 31.

https://riabiz.com/a/2013/9/27/after-a-lot-of-flak-fidelity-investments-does-a-study-and-pledges-to-change-how-it-manages-its-170-billion-of-target-date-funds
Meanwhile, Fidelity was not only tinkering with its initial Freedom series, but creating a slew of variants: Freedom Index (same idea, but w/index funds), Managed Payout Funds and Simplicity RMD Funds (originally Income Replacement Funds launched in 2008, with dates every two years). That change came about around 2017.
You can find those four series on Fidelity's Asset Allocation funds page (click on Asset Allocation tab).
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fidelity-funds/overview
What Fidelity isn't showing you there is that it has a fifth(!) series of funds. Fidelity Freedom Blend funds, which is a "blend" of active and passive management. See, e.g. FHARX. These date from 2018.
As Yogi noted, in 2020, T. Rowe Price decided change the glide paths of both of its series to make them more aggressive. Rather than make a quick change, it changed the allocations over a period of two years, which should be complete in the middle of this year.
In 2021, T. Rowe Price launched a series of blend funds (that appear to make more extensive use of index funds to reduce cost). These follow the same new ("enhanced") glide path that the Retirement Series are migrating to. But since the Retirement Blend series is new, it doesn't need to transition to the new glide path, it starts with that immediately. The two series, Retirement and Retirement Blend, should be tracking the same path within a few months.

• The Retirement Blend Fund series is designed for investors who prefer a single, simplified, professionally managed solution for retirement investing and who want an approach that marries the benefits of active and passive investment styles, including placing a greater emphasis on managing overall cost.
• The Retirement Blend strategy has been in place at T. Rowe Price since 2018 but it was previously available only in the collective investment trust format. This mutual fund series extends the firm's Retirement Blend approach to a wider range of investors for whom a mutual fund is the preferred or most appropriate vehicle.
• The Retirement Blend Funds use the enhanced glide path and the same diversification and tactical asset allocation as T. Rowe Price's existing Retirement series of target date portfolios.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/t-rowe-price-adds-retirement-blend-funds-to-target-date-lineup-301343055.html
I respectfully disagree that T. Rowe Price has made this confusing to the max. IMHO that "honor" goes to Fidelity, with its ever changing glidepaths, its greater multiplicity of series, its "hidden" series of blend funds, and its changing of series names and objectives. And lest I forget, a slew of share classes, including K and K6, and Fidelity Advisor variants with their alphabet soup: A, C, M, I, Z, and Z6.

@Derf, leave to Price to make it confusing to the max.
So, there were the original TDFs going back to around 2002. These are now called (TRP) Retirement 20xx. These were/are known as the most aggressive among the TDFs.
To address the criticism (that was LOUD in 2008-09), Price introduced a new but tamer TDF series around 2013 called (TRP) Target 20xx (see the naming trick?)
In 2020, Price decided to change glide-paths of its TDFs so that they keep higher equity for longer. This opened Price to criticism again that retirees may be hurt in big downdrafts.
So, Price decided in 2021 to make even softer cousins, "blends" it calls, of its original TDF series, and these were named (TRP) Retirement Blend 20xx (I think Price needs better fund-naming execs).
So, now Price has 3 variations for each retirement date. For 2010, they are (TRP) Retirement 2010 TRRAX (2002- ), (TRP) Target 2010 TRROX (2013- ), (TRP) Target Blend 2010 TBLQX (2021- ); these 3 are Investor classes, and there are 3 corresponding Institutional classes, so 6 2010 TDFs, or 6x the dates in the TDF series. Do you want add CITs to the count?
Clear? May be call Price on Tuesday and see if its customer service even has a clue.
Well, the others have a better system where each TDF is labeled as (BlaBla) Target/Retirement 20xx Aggressive, (BlaBla) Target/Retirement 20xx Moderate, (BlaBla) Target/Retirement 20xx Conservative; most just have one type per TDF date.

I hadn't looked at the performance tabs on Yahoo. That's a really nice feature.
Now, if Yahoo would only report accurately. FGMNX had three losing calendar years: the two you mentioned and also 2021. Yahoo show 2021's return as N/A, though it knows better. Yahoo gives December 31 adjusted closing figures as 11.58 (2021) and 11.68 (2020) for a loss of 0.85%, matching Fidelity's official figure.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/performance-and-risk/31617K105?type=sq-NavBar
FWIW, according to the Yahoo performance tab, the fund's worst calendar quarters were in 1987: 2Q (-2.48%) and 3Q (-3.40%). The worst three month drawdown, irrespective of month boundaries, was around 6½%, from the close on July 17, 1987 to the close on Oct 16 (a Friday) or Oct 19 (a Monday) 1987. Nearly double the calendar quarter max loss.
I got this by downloading the daily adjusted close figures from Yahoo and playing with Excel to approximate quarterly returns day by day.

I have no problem with strong opinions. In fact, CW may well deserve them in time. What bothers me the most for now (as Cramer pointed out) was her utter lack of humility. She will either turn out right ala her Tesla call (she says this is currently the greatest misallocation of capital in history) or she will be more like the PBHG special fund (remember that one fellow old-timers?). "Special" alright. I'm putting my "gambling" money on CW given her still-relevant outperformance, but no more than that.