Here's a more detailed history of AMG:
https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/13/Affiliated-Managers-Group-Inc.html
Until I checked, I also thought: "Affiliates operate independently" and "AMG invests in independent investment managers and allows them to remain independent". But it surely can't be coincidence that a large number of AMG branded funds had complete management changes and sometimes radical objective changes in or around March.
M* (human) analysis of parent AMG, Nov 2020: While AMG's stronger affiliates have held up relatively well, net outflows have caused the firm and its affiliates to liquidate or merge subscale offerings, including AMG GW&K US Small Cap Growth and AMG River Road Dividend All Cap Value. In another instance, affiliate Chicago Equity Partners shuttered its business entirely, spurring a subadvisor and name change on AMG GW&K Global Allocation. Recent challenges in AMG's quantitative offerings have contributed most substantially to outflows, with shops such as AQR suffering the most.
Here's AMG's current 55 fund lineup. Lots of recent "independent" changes this year. Maybe it's a one-off and AMG is done tinkering for awhile. (See more under Brandywine below.)
https://www.amgfunds.com/products.html
M* (automated) individual fund analyses:
Beutel Goodman funds
ADBLX (formerly AMG Managers DoubleLIne CorePlus Bond Fund, formerly ASTON/DoubleLine Core Plus Fixed Income Fund) - Although this strategy was incepted in July 2011, its listed management team turned over completely two months ago. Therefore, the fund’s historical team data is largely no longer applicable, as it’s not representative of the current strategy.
APINX (formerly AMG Managers Pictet Int'l, formerly ASTON/Pictet Int'l) - Although this strategy was incepted in April 2014, its listed management team turned over completely two months ago ...
Brandywine funds(Proxy Statement, April 2021): The proposed changes for the Funds, which have been approved by the Board of Trustees, are part of a strategic repositioning of the AMG Funds complex for greater alignment with AMG, in which each fund not currently subadvised by an AMG Affiliate will be transitioned to an AMG Affiliate subadviser ...
BRWIX (formerly Brandwine fund) - Even though this strategy’s track record dates back to December 1985, there has been a high degree of turnover on the management side recently, resulting in a thorough overhaul of its listed team two months ago. Therefore, the fund’s historical team data is largely no longer applicable.
BLUEX (formerly Brandywine Blue) - This strategy underwent a complete overhaul of its listed management team two months ago. And even though their record dates back to January 1991, it's difficult to analyze the new team until they spend more time on the strategy.
GW&K funds
MGFIX (formerly AMG Managers Loomis Sayles Bond) - Even though this strategy’s track record dates back to June 1984, there has been a high degree of turnover on the management side recently, resulting in a complete overhaul of its listed team two months ago ...
MBEAX (formerly AMG Chicago Equity Partners Balanced) - The team that took over this fund in April 2020 lacks proven expertise in several elements of this strategy.
MGGBX (formerly Managers Global Income Opportunity) - Even though this strategy’s track record dates back to March 1994, there has been a high degree of turnover on the management side recently, resulting in a complete overhaul of its listed team five months ago ...
MECAX (formerly Managers Cadence Emerging Companies) - This strategy underwent a total overhaul of its listed management team seven months ago. And even though their record dates back to June 1993, it's difficult to analyze the new team until they spend more time on the strategy.
SKSEX (formerly Skyline Special Equities) - Although this strategy was incepted in April 1987, its listed management team turned over completely five months ago. ...
ASCTX (formerly ASTON/Silvercrest Small Cap) - This strategy underwent a total overhaul of its listed management team two months ago. And even though their record dates back to December 2011, it's difficult to analyze the new team until they spend more time on the strategy.
ACWDX (formerly AMG Managers LMCG Small Cap Growth, formerly ASTON Small Cap Growth, formerly ASTON/Crosswind Small Cap Growth) - Even though this strategy’s track record dates back to November 2010, there has been a high degree of turnover on the management side recently, resulting in a complete overhaul of its listed team two months ago. ...
Harding Loevner - majority owned by AMG, this family has been unscathed.
(Managers) Montag & Caldwell
MCTFX (formerly AMG Managers Montag & Caldwell Growth Fund, formerly ASTON/Montag & Caldwell Growth fund) - This strategy underwent a total overhaul of its listed management team two months ago. And even though their record dates back to November 1994, it's difficult to analyze the new team until they spend more time on the strategy.
Pantheon - CEF, accredited investors only, acquired by AMG in 2010, not worth further investigation
Renaissance - some funds liquidated: AMG Renaissance Int'l Equity RIEIX (2018), Masters Renaissance Large Cap Equity (2006)
MLRTX - in 2017, AMG merged its AMG Managers Cadence Capital Appreciation Fund MPRFX into this fund.
River Road funds
FQUAX (formerly AMG FQ Long-Short Equity, formerly AMG FQ U.S. Equity) - This strategy underwent a total overhaul of its listed management team two months ago. And even though their record dates back to August 1992, it's difficult to analyze the new team until they spend more time on the strategy.
CHTTX (formerly AMG Managers Fairpointe Mid Cap, formerly ASTON/Fairpointe Mid Cap) - Although this strategy was incepted in September 1994, its listed management team turned over completely two months ago ...
TimesSquare - majority owned by AMG since 2004, this family has been unscathed
Tweedy Browne - majority owned by AMG since 1997, this family has been unscathed. Oddly, AMG lists only one of its funds, TBGVX, in its list of current offerings.
Veritas funds
MGSEX (formerly Managers Special Equity) - This strategy underwent a total overhaul of its listed management team two months ago. And even though their record dates back to June 1984, it's difficult to analyze the new team until they spend more time on the strategy.
MMCFX (formerly AMG Managers Emerging Opp) - [M* human analysis] AMG Managers Emerging Opportunities will soon undergo a complete overhaul under a new subadvisor, changing from a U.S. microcap fund to a China fund. ... As of May 21, 2021, AMG is replacing this fund's three current subadvisors with Veritas Asset Management, a London-based global investing boutique majority-owned by AMG.
MFQAX (formerly AMG FQ Tax-Managed U.S. Equity, formerly First Quadrant Tax-Managed Equity) - Although this strategy was incepted in December 2000, its listed management team turned over completely zero months ago ....
BLUEX - see under Brandywine, above.
Yacktman funds - unscathed

@Dennis,
Thanks for bringing this planned acquistion to our attention!
Jerome Dodson retired from active management last year and the Parnassus sale allows him to cash out.
Since ESG funds are currently popular, this may have been an an opportune time to sell the firm.
Being a PRILX shareholder, I'm glad that Todd Ahlsten and Ben Allen will remain with the firm.
AMG provides support services to acquired mutual fund companies but otherwise allows them to operate with great autonomy.
Here's the AMG business description from an M* Equity Analyst Report dated 04/06/2021.
"Affiliated Managers Group offers investment strategies
to investors through its network of affiliates. The firm
typically buys a majority interest in small to midsize
boutique asset managers, receiving a fixed percentage
of revenue from these firms in return. Affiliates operate
independently, with AMG providing strategic,
operational, and technology support, as well as global
distribution. At the end of 2020, AMG's affiliate network-
-which includes firms like AQR Capital Management,
BPEA and Pantheon in alternative assets and other
products (which accounted for 30% of AUM), Artemis,
Genesis, Harding Loevner, and Tweedy Browne in global
equities (39%) and Frontier, River Road, and Yacktman in
U.S. equities (14%)--had $716.2 billion in managed
assets."

AMG is effectively a holding company. You may be familiar with at least a few of their funds, e.g. YACKX, TCMPX (mentioned by a few posters here as recently as 2020), BRWIX (formerly Brandywine), MGSEX (" Effective March 19, 2021, AMG Managers Special Equity Fund ... changed its name[] to AMG Veritas Asia Pacific Fund"), etc.
Though as noted with that last fund, AMG seems to have recently overhauled a few Managers Funds. And while one can ignore the earlier name change of BRWIX, M* observed that the entire management team was just replaced in March rendering its past history meaningless.
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/series?sc=companyseries&type=N-PX&company=AMG

Complete text of article from Barron's: Affiliated Managers Group, the big holding company for asset managers, has agreed to buy Parnassus Investments, the socially responsible investment firm, for $600 million, according to a person knowledgeable about the transaction.
The move demonstrates the popularity of environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, investing. In recent years, Parnassus, based in San Francisco, has grown swiftly as the vogue for sustainable investing strengthened and as the firm developed a reputation for reliably good performance. It has five mutual funds, all fossil-fuel free.
Sustainable investing, also known as ESG investing, has been a huge and steady trend in recent years. In 2020, nearly a quarter of all fund flows went into sustainable funds. That could gain strength as U.S. retirement plans open up to sustainable investing.
About a third of the $51.4 trillion of U.S. assets under management is sustainably managed, according to US SIF, the trade group for the sustainable-investment industry. Indeed, a survey by investment manager Schroders found that 69% of retirement-plan participants said they would or might increase their overall contribution rate if their plan offered ESG options.
Both Parnassus and AMG (ticker: AMG) declined to comment or confirm the terms of the transaction. The transaction is subject to the agreement of Parnassus fund shareholders.
Parnassus is approximately 35% owned by its employees and 65% by the founder, Jerome Dodson, and his family. It oversees $47 billion. AMG invests in independent investment managers and allows them to remain independent while providing capital, distribution, and other capabilities to affiliates such as AQR Capital Management and Yacktman Asset Management. It has roughly $720 billion in assets under management.
In recent years, some of the most venerable names in U.S. sustainable investing have been purchased by larger entities. Calvert Research & Management was acquired by Eaton Vance in 2016, which in turn was bought by Morgan Stanley (MS) this year. In 2018, Pax World Management was acquired by Impax Asset Management (IPX.London). Trillium Asset Management was purchased last year by Australian financial services company Perpetual. This year, AMG bought 15% of Boston Common Partners, while Boston Common’s management team and principals retained 85%.
AMG has agreed to pay Parnassus $400 million in cash on closing and an additional $200 million one year later. There is an additional performance fee, according to the person familiar with the transaction. As part of the transaction, Parnassus CEO Ben Allen and chief investment officer Todd Ahlsten, both longtime employees, are signing contracts to remain with the firm. Ahlsten is also a member of the Barron’s Roundtable.
Founder Dodson, 78, a longtime star investor, stepped back last year, leaving Parnassus Endeavor Fund (PARWX) and the funds’ board of trustees. Dodson founded Parnassus in 1984 with $350,000 from friends and family.
Write to Leslie P. Norton at [email protected]

“Where is the evidence that the market could "slap (you) in the face" soon? There is none. With respect, the very person who recently told us to ignore speculative comments like this has just made one himself! The facts all point to continued growth in the US stockmarket for the foreseeable future. There is absolutely zero evidence supporting the recession theory, let alone the crash theory.”
- Posted by @Simon - January 2020
Nobody could have foreseen the market swoon that befell us only weeks after that comment was posted. A bloody time for stocks, gold, commodities - even corporate bonds until the Federal Reserve stepped in and shored up the BBB markets. Had you been light on risk assets at the time you could have made out like a bandit buying them up in the aftermath. Possibly, the “old f’s” that hang out here were on to something with their cautious note. You’re never too old or too young to learn - young from old and old from young.
March 9, 2020 Market Crash

Here’s another one …
http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/etfs/overview.asp?symbol=DUST.K
DUST is down nearly 50% since inception (2010) and has lost more than 70% of its value over the last 3 years. This one bets against gold, employing 2X leverage.
(“Rules by Which a Great Fortune May Be Reduced to a Small One”)
With both of these funds, I think they’re meant more to be traded by experienced hands in the game than average investors. Read somewhere that some die-hard gold bulls use DUST temporarily to hedge their gains after a big run up in gold’s price. A bit disillusioning to know that some actively followed gold bulls may be shorting the stuff whille continuing to preach its virtues to their followers..
All the above is too complex for me. I’ll stick to a conservative static allocation with occasional underweighting or over-weighting of a component plus regular rebalancing.

For many years the Yahoo historical data for funds included capital gains in the "dividend" historical data. Some time in the last three months, only "dividend-dividends" appear in the amounts. (Go look at a fund that pays sometimes-whopping CG but not income like RYPNX for proof.) So back to scraping prospectuses for the data.

For every OEF I've checked for the past six months, Yahoo stopped counting cap gains during year-end 2020 and has not corrected the problem. Of course that's made a hash of any total return calculations that include that time, given how many funds handed out large capital gains distributions then.
And, mirabile dictu (as old Latin students tend to shout at times), Morningstar has become the better source of distribution info. Plus, for mutual funds, M* is much more timely now than Yahoo, which had been taking a good month at times to post OEF dividends. Looks like they may be getting a little closer to timely lately, though.

I still use Yahoo to view quarterly fund returns, so the RYPNX 1Q 2020 loss of 37.14% is a little too high octane for me. I looked up JABAX on Tiingo and found some good blog and news information: I just need to grasp the Lingo on Tiingo and stop being a confused Dingo !

For many years the Yahoo historical data for funds included capital gains in the "dividend" historical data. Some time in the last three months, only "dividend-dividends" appear in the amounts. (Go look at a fund that pays sometimes-whopping CG but not income like RYPNX for proof.) So back to scraping prospectuses for the data.
For 30 years I've kept a database of weekly quote data for 50 or so funds, etfs, and indices, including distriubution data. So goes the last vestige of usefulness for Yahoo Finance for this, unless you like spam from crypto pump and dump schemes. I switched to Tiingo for my weekly quote update long ago when Yahoo dumped their finance API, and I recommend it. It's free for modest use; they seem to make money by charging for more advanced and real time data.

Hi @Simon
While the tilt of Mr. Snowball's monthly commentary (over the years) and Mr. Bolin's current articles may be directed more towards capital preservation; one has the full discussion forum available here to seek any and all investment opinions with posting the proper question(s) to discover appropriate and proper suggestions that you may find worthy.
While some of the old farts who regularly post here may be 20+ years your age; do not assume they are not growth investors; or that their investment path has not included growth in their portfolio to arrive at it's current value.
The Start New Discussion icon and selecting either Fund Discussions or Other Investing is the start point to begin your query, of your topic.
I also suggest reviewing the Discussion board at least on a weekly basis to discover if a post is related to your inclination and investing style.
Regards,
Catch

If you are interested, I would encourage you to read Harley Bassman's "Convexity Maven" blog. Even if you do not agree with his concerns about inflation, he is wicked smart and worth listening to. He also has a model portfolio in December with some very interesting ideas, and has been referenced frequently in Barrons, for example.
He designed PFIX as "fire insurance" against the damage the rising interest rates can do to financial commitments that are interest rate sensitive, ie Intermediate and Long Term Bonds, or an adjustable rate mortgage for example.
https://www.convexitymaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/convexity-maven-fire-insurance.pdf
He sees this a a $50,000 insurance premium against a $1,000,000 portfolio of intermediate bonds, that will pay off if interest rates shot up. If you believe inflation is truly "transitory" then you do not need this insurance. Some of us remember the 70's, however.
I think this represents the biggest tug of war going on now: Will inflation truly be transient, and all of the price increases are only the result of Covid disruptions to supply chains et. The "no increased rate or inflation" view is best summarized by Lacy Hunt at Hoisington Management, who believes Treasuries will continue to rally.
But he thinks this will happen because the feds are sucking all available capital out of the system to pay for the deficit. This does not bode well for the economy either.
Of course we might get both: Collapsing growth and higher rates ie stagflation.

John said: “Increase buy enery maybe good idea
Added more Vde yesterday”
Yes - Buying after something’s price has rocked up 150%+ is always a good idea. Why buy a home for $200,000 when you can wait a year and get it for $500,000? Why pay $50 for a new shirt if you can have the same shirt for $150 in a year? That new car you’re looking at for $40,000 will definitely be a better buy when the price tops $100,000.
“Chop-logic” (as one of Shakespeare’s players put it).
Note: The chart does not reflect today’s oil price at over $75. But it does show that oil ended 2020:at around $50 after briefly falling below 0 that spring.

How in the world can anyone short anything in this market ...
You might as well ask how in the world anyone can underweight anything in this market. Easy, because some securities perform better than others. Shorting just takes underweighting a step further. Do you remember 130/30 funds?

The rationale for the concept had a degree of logic. A 130/30 fund combines a gross long position of 130 per cent with a short position of 30 per cent, meaning it still has the same 100 per cent net exposure to the market as a traditional long-only fund.
However, long-only managers can only underweight, not short, stocks they do not like. This leaves little room to generate outperformance from these stocks, particularly if they are say, only 0.1 per cent of the index.

https://www.ft.com/content/fdbf6284-b724-11e2-841e-00144feabdc0
It doesn't matter whether the shorted stocks go up or down. What matters is that they don't do as well as the stocks purchased with the proceeds from shorting them.
That article goes on to note:

"The problem came when many asset managers discovered they did not have the necessary skills to short,” says Amin Rajan, chief executive of Create Research, a consultancy. “It’s a very specialised skill. It’s more a psychological than academic discipline.”

If one uses shorting to time the market rather than to magnify the impact of stock picking skills, it's easy to get burned:

While some mainstream fund managers periodically have shorted stocks - Mario Gabelli of the Gabelli funds and CGM's Kenneth Heebner come to mind - most have shied away from it.
The late 1990s story of manager Jim Crabbe and his Crabbe-Huson Special fund illustrates why. Crabbe-Huson Special (eventually sold to Liberty Funds Distributors, now part of FleetBoston Financial) adopted shorting provisions in the mid-1990s to guard against a downturn. But Crabbe got bearish early, going short on technology stocks just as they rocketed to new heights. From 1995 through 1999, the fund lost more than 20 percent, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index was up roughly 200 percent; years of gains in the fund were wiped out.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-10-13-0210120267-story.html

I had no idea.
The Washington Post
Personal Finance
Your retirement with Michelle Singletary.
A reality TV couple wanted to ‘bless’ Black people suffering financially. The FTC says it was a pyramid scheme.
A Texas couple once featured on an OWN network reality show “Family or Fiance,” promised people they could get a financial blessing of 800 percent in as little as a week.
It turns out they were running a pyramid scheme that targeted and then bilked Black people affected by the pandemic, according to two lawsuits filed against the Black couple.
In a joint complaint filed on June 16, the Federal Trade Commission and the state of Arkansas accused Marlon and LaShonda Moore of operating a pyramid scheme program called “Blessings In No Time,” or BINT. The Texas attorney general also has filed a lawsuit against the couple for scamming needy Black families.
For an upfront fee of $1,400 or $1,425, participants were told they could receive a return of $11,200 or $11,400 respectively — eight times their contribution to a “blessing loom.”
“In general, these schemes falsely promise a big return — or as BINT termed it, being ‘blessed out’ — following a modest initial payment,” the FTC and Arkansas complaint said. “In reality, however, very few consumers make any money. And the few consumers that do make money sometimes lose their profits by reinvesting in the scheme.”
Marlon Moore is known as DJ ASAP, which he says in marketing materials stands for “Always Serve A Purpose.” Participants said in interviews that the couple often chastised people for not recruiting enough. And in one call, they tried to discredit my reporting and warnings about pyramids schemes, one participant said.
Attempts to contact the Moores were unsuccessful.
Coretta Vanterpool of Florida said she lost close to $13,000. In total, Vanterpool said she and the family members she recruited were out $30,000. Others paid as much as $62,700 to participate in BINT, according to the FTC.
Vanterpool said she was told that an initial contribution of $1,425 would net her a “blessing” of $11,400 in seven to 10 days. To make even more money, she paid for multiple places on the blessing loom board. She was going to use the money to help pay down some of her $50,000 in student loans.
“They just made it sound so real, so nice,” said Vanterpool, whose nephew recruited her. “Since he received his first payment, he thought it was legit. A lot of people came in because they had been furloughed or they had lost their jobs. Their companies had closed. A couple of ladies were about to lose their homes. I met one lady through the group who was trying to get the money so she could pay for chemotherapy.”
The type of fraudulent schemes alleged in the complaint go by various names — sou-sou, gifting circle, money board, or blessing loom. The illegal operations borrow the principles of legitimate sou-sous, informal savings clubs that have cultural roots in West Africa, the Caribbean and other immigrant communities.
In the real-deal saving circles, groups are small. People pool their money, taking turns receiving a payout. But they don’t get back more money than they put into the pot. It’s more like a forced savings program with accountability partners.
The hallmark of an unlawful pyramid scheme hinges on two key elements: You are asked to pay an upfront entry fee with the expectation of a significant payout, and you have to recruit others to do the same.
Typically, people are relentlessly pushed to recruit. There are steps or levels of the circle or octagon that lead to a center, which is when you are supposed to get your payout. The core of the con is that you’ll get a substantial “gift” relative to what you put up from people joining after you. The whole enterprise eventually collapses, and the last folks coming in — the wide base of the pyramid — lose their money.
Here’s why these scams work. Some participants get the promised payout. They in turn share testimonies of their substantial gains. But after several rounds of this fraudulent scheme, the money dries up because not enough new people are recruited who are willing to make upfront payments.
I’ve been reporting the rise of illegal pyramid schemes since last summer as desperate folks started looking for quick ways to make money. Promoters often target certain communities in which they share an affinity. Black promoters, for example, have been exploiting the disenfranchisement that many African Americans are feeling, especially those who have lost jobs because of the coronavirus. The operators get recruits to drag in family and friends, fellow church members and co-workers.
The message of building Black wealth that the Moores espoused resonated with people, the lawsuits said.
“People were really vulnerable, just ready for any kind of hope,” one California woman who was involved in BINT said in an interview. “They were talking about building a Black community and building generational wealth. Those are the catchphrases now. They were just kind of selling people a dream.”
I asked Vanterpool how she felt recruiting family members who lost money.
“It hurts because I brought someone else into a situation that they didn’t have to be in when they were already suffering,” she said. “I’ve put in money that I really don’t have that I should have just used for what it was for and that was for my loans. Now I’m starting back at square one and hoping and praying that I’ll get this money back.”
Reader Question of the Week
If you have a personal finance or retirement question, send it to [email protected]. In the subject line put “Question of the Week.” Please note that questions may be edited for clarity.
Q: As a federal civil service employee, I heard that when I retire, I can’t specify which Thrift Savings Plan fund (e.g., C fund or G fund) I can withdraw from. It sounds like any amount I withdraw will be from all funds that I have invested in. Is this true?
A: For those not familiar with the federal government’s workplace retirement plan it’s called the Thrift Savings Plan or TSP, which is available to federal employees and members of the uniformed services, including the Ready Reserve.
TSP generally offers the same types of savings and tax benefits that many private corporations offer their employees under their 401(k) or similar plans.
If you have a TSP and will be tapping the funds, you should read “Withdrawing from Your TSP Account.”
You can leave your entire account balance in the TSP after you leave federal government service if the balance is $200 or more.
The options in the TSP include the following:
G Fund – Government Securities Investment Fund
F Fund - Fixed Income Index Investment Fund
C Fund - Common Stock Index Investment Fund
S Fund - Small cap stock Index investment fund
I Fund - International Stock Index Investment Fund
L (Lifecycle) Funds - A diversified mix of the five core funds (G, F, C, S, and I)
So, as to the question, can you withdraw from specific TSP funds? The answer is no. Distributions are taken proportionately from each fund.
When participants retire, they can specify whether they want to withdraw solely from their traditional (pre-tax) balance or from their Roth money. But, “the withdrawal will come from all of the funds,” said Kim Weaver, director of external affairs at the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. “A participant cannot specify which fund she or he wants to withdraw from.”
Weaver said participants can rebalance their accounts with an interfund transfer if they want to, pre or post-withdrawal.
Two years ago, there were major changes to withdrawal options for TSP account holders. Here’s a Washington Post article that explained the changes:
Federal employees have more withdrawal choices for their retirement savings

Best to keep in mind how today's inflation number is calculated - year over year - and what was happening a year ago.
Hank's right about the usual inflation-related investments having already been bid up, starting months ago. In the case of the analyst group I follow the closest, it was about nine months ago they recommended getting into inflation assets -- specifically with the jump in the official numbers in mind, the numbers that would be coming in the quarters ahead, set up by the lowflation/deflation of late Q1/Q2 of 2020.
I could be a little wealthier now if I'd gone into that trade more heavily back then, instead of cautiously.

I listened to a number of "analysts" and the recommendation back last year to get into growth. Curious, which "analysts" do you follow, and do you find them reputable?

There were about a dozen separate accounts because TRP created an account for each mutual fund, for some odd reason.
My understanding (read: no citations, I could be in mistaken) is that until sometime in the 80s(?), each mutual fund investment at any company was treated as a separate account with a separate account number. Similar to buying stock directly from a corporation. Two different companies, two different accounts.
I don't know about other companies, but in the 90s(?) Fidelity grouped these separate accounts together under a single "T account" number. It reported the accounts together on a single statement under a single T account number. But on the 1099 each fund still appeared as a separate account with its own divs and cap gains. (Contrast that with a brokerage statement where there's a combined set of figures for all the holdings.)
I looked at an old 90s statement and an old 90s 1099 to confirm this.
You can still find traces of this at Fidelity. On this Fidelity page describing direct deposits, click on the "Mutual Fund Account" tab in the middle of the page, and then look for "T account number".
https://www.fidelity.com/tax-information/direct-deposit
Whether the accounts were technically separate or not mattered. Until a few years ago, one could perform one 60 day transfer per IRA account each year. (Current law is one 60 day transfer, period, each year.) If your IRA accounts were separate, you could do a 60 day rollover of one, then later decide to do a 60 day rollover on another.

I just revisited Grantham's January 5 article. His best guess at that time:

My best guess as to the longest this bubble might survive is the late spring or early summer, coinciding with the broad rollout of the COVID vaccine. At that moment, the most pressing issue facing the world economy will have been solved. Market participants will breathe a sigh of relief, look around, and immediately realize that the economy is still in poor shape, stimulus will shortly be cut back with the end of the COVID crisis, and valuations are absurd. “Buy the rumor, sell the news.”

According to Grantham, it's time to look around (and bail).
So, I'm looking around. The economy is in much better shape than I expected it to be at mid-year and its potential appears brighter than I expected. The Fed and other central banks are continuing to be supportive. And, there is momentum behind an infrastructure bill that has the potential to provide substantial long needed investment in the backbone of the country. Are valuations really likely to collapse in the near future based on valuations being "high"?
One of today's headlines:
Haters everywhere in stock market after S&P 500's big first half
A few brief excerpts from that Bloomberg article:

...the S&P 500’s 14 per cent rally (is) putting it on course for its second-best January through June period since 1998.
In the 27 years when gains in equities were this strong through the first six months, three-quarters of the time stocks continued to march higher by December.
...pushing against the wall of worries are the growing numbers of retail traders who bought the dip during the pandemic bear market and have since become the staunchest allies of this bull market.
The trade-off households face between equities and other asset classes favors equities through year-end given anemic money market and credit yields

I plan to continue harvesting year-to-date gains to restrict my risk exposure.....if the market continues to offer them (that process has provided a substantial boost to my "rainy day" cash on hand so far this year). But no significant other trimming is in the offing....
Is anyone looking around and deciding to bail or to substantially reduce their risk exposure?

Thanks folks.
Today (Saturday) is the first time in 10 days I’ve logged in to my Fido account when the news wasn’t worse. Actually improved overnight. Possibly, the discussions with 3 different reps yesterday helped. Notably, the earlier mentioned restrictions now apply only to my Traditional IRA. On the Roth & non-retirement accounts they’ve disappeared.
@msf questioned the “bounced check” restriction. While not posted to my account, it was related to me by a rep at Fido’s trading desk after being transferred to him with some fund specific questions. I do believe it’s on file there - but is likely such an infrequent (and serious) infraction that it’s not mentioned elsewhere. The “free ride” likely refers to the small position I’d opened in a favorite stock (mostly for fun) that was sold by Fido only 1-2 days later.
Fido mailed me copies of TRP’s 3 bounced checks. They were written on an account at Mellon Bank of Delaware. They are stamped: “Return to Maker - Reason S”.
Here’s a copy & paste I pulled from my Traditional IRA at Fido this morning:
Free Ride Violations – 1 Violation in last 12 months
Good Faith Violations – None in last 12 months
Liquidation Violations – 1 Violation in last 12 months
Hoping to buy back into those mutual funds and the ETF next week. The stock was temporarily depressed when I bought it. It’s bounced back to the point now that I likely won’t buy it again.
FWIW (unrelated): I’m sharing a link to a 2020 informational piece at Fidelity regarding their dollar “threshold” as to when a round trip in one of their funds is likely to get you into trouble. That’s an area I’ve been trying to nail down as I do tend to increase / decrease exposure to certain positions fairly often. If the (monitored) threshold really is $10,000 (as their memo suggests) that’s good news for a lot of us.
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/mutual-funds/2020-08-31-Excessive-Trading-Policy-Web-Post.pdf
PS - Try to be kind when talking to the reps at TRP. It’s not their fault things are so off the rails there. I actually apologized Thursday to a young lady after raising my voice in frustration. Her kind response assured me I was being tame compared to some of the interactions.

Just keeping an eye on the evolution of the tug-of-war between fossil fuels and renewable energy. Fossil fuels are having a better year so far (at least judging by my investments). The continuation of the multi-decade transition towards renewable energy appears critical and clear. But, it doesn't appear to me the time for fossil fuel investments has fully passed (I still own gas powered cars and a house heated with natural gas). Anyway....

“Supply will likely remain tight for the next two or three years as the industry makes up for the lack of new supply investments in 2020 and catches up with robust demand growth,” said Whistler.

https://bnnbloomberg.ca/there-isn-t-enough-natural-gas-to-calm-down-a-global-price-rally-1.1621711

Certainly RPEIX is not the primary driver, even if we take its 1/6 naively at face value. (I had considered posting a link to an explanation of notional value somewhere else in this thread.)
RPIEX (retail class of RPEIX) serves as starting point for constructing a portfolio that emulates that of TMSRX. Replacing the remaining 5/6 of TMSRX with 4/6 RPIEX and 1/6 VTSAX produces a portfolio that performs pretty similarly (albeit with better figures) to the original TMSRX. That is, the two-fund portfolio tracks the ups and downs of TMSRX fairly well.
So regardless of how important the individual drivers in that exceedingly complex 5/6 are, in concert they seem to behave little different from a 4:1 mix of RPIEX and VTSAX.
VaR is primarily a measure of, to state the obvious, value at risk. It is concerned with the probability distribution of potential losses (and gains) over a fixed period of time. It is less concerned with how a portfolio gets to those points. Though it is concerned, at least implicitly, with variances (thus "volatility"), as you explained. But it's also concerned with covariances.
If I construct a portfolio that is 1/3 long in bitcoin, 1/3 short in bitcoin, and 1/3 in a short term bond fund, it's the bond fund with its low volatility, that is the primary driver. The other two highly volatile components cancel themselves out. That's why covariances matter as much as variances.
RPEIX has a near zero correlation with VTSAX (-0.14) and with IEF (0.01), per Portfolio Visualizer. One may not call that magical, but it's awfully impressive given its 3% annualized return. (One can get zero correlation with money under a mattress.)
Given that a combination of RPEIX and VTSAX can substantially reproduce TSMRX (at least based on the fund's performance to date), and that VTSAX is anything but magical, it seems fair to say that the "magic" of TSMRX is at least reflected by if not embodied in RPEIX.