too many! All VG active funds (33% of VG business) have outside advisors

Could you source this figure? Vanguard suggests a much lower percentage for its whole business. $1.6T/$7.2T = 22%.

Few people realize we’re among the world’s largest active investment managers with more than $1.6 trillion entrusted to us by investors [as of 12/31/2020]

https://institutional.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip/site/institutional/investments/AlphaActive

About $7.2 trillion in global assets under management, as of January 31, 2021

https://about.vanguard.com/who-we-are/fast-facts/
It's possible that Vanguard is presenting only domestic actively managed AUM and that the global figure (and thus overall percentage) is higher.
M* looked more narrowly at just US equity funds, where the fraction of assets that are actively managed is even lower (1/8):

Counting both their mutual fund and exchange-traded fund versions, Vanguard’s U.S. stock index funds amount to a collective $2.2 trillion--7 times the total for the active funds [as of mid 2020].

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/994649/whither-vanguards-active-us-equity-funds
Regarding active fixed income funds (including MMFs) Wellington is the sole advisor for VFIIX / VFIJX and VWEHX / VWEAX. The Vanguard Fixed Income Group manages all the other active Vanguard fixed income funds (including MMFs) alone, except for VWESX / VWETX where Wellington helps out.
Aside from Vanguard's fixed income funds and funds of funds, there are a number of other active funds that Vanguard manages alone. The more vanilla of them are VMVFX / VMNVX, VFMFX, VSEQX, and VSTCX. Alternative strategy funds include VASFX and VMNFX. Vanguard's commodities fund VCMDX is run jointly by its quant group and its fixed income group.

Same thing here. The download continues to work, but all of the dividend and cap gains reinvestments are labled "bought" and there is a separate line with a transaction labeled "ReinvestInt" for int, st div, st and lt cap gains.
On my Schwab accounts there are two transactions for each re investment, one with the source and dollar amount and a separate with "Reinvest shares

Fund turnover is low. M* Quote page is not showing major outflows? So, why the huge CG distribution?
M* analyst report notes that its longtime manager left at 2020 yearend. Of course, a manager change caused a complete makeover of portfolio and huge CG distributions.

As a long term owner of two Primecap funds (at either end of the so-called risk spectrum) I have some concerns. The obvious one is relative performance: all of the Primecap funds seem to have under-performed their benchmarks -- as well as "the market" -- over the past five years, some over the past ten (especially when taxes are taken into account). I regard that as a moderate length of time, sufficient to capture my attention. When it comes to the riskier funds (in my case POAGX), I seem to see some very off-beat names in the top 25 holdings, although I'm certainly not privy to the research resulting in those buy decisions. Of far greater concern to me is the fact that the team at Primecap appears to lack any notion of a "sell" discipline. The concept of a "target price" seems alien to them. On many occasions in the recent past the market has literally gifted stocks in the portfolios with sudden, unwarranted, and ultimately temporary price increases that Primecap rarely takes advantage of. (Examples include BABA, BIIB, NKTR, SGEN, but there are quite a few in addition.) What to do? I decided to take this year's hefty capital gains distributions (attributable to shareholder redemptions) in cash. Based on preliminary information, it looks like most Odyssey fund shareholders did the same thing yesterday. The Vanguard funds haven't made their distributions yet.

Actually, and as noted in the SEC proposal, "Government funds are [currently] permitted, but not required, to impose fees and gates." So technically some parts of the SEC proposal have scope beyond prime & muni m-mkt funds.
Pragmatically, I doubt that any government MMF adopted¹ fees or gates. But by the same token, I'm not aware of any MMF that ever actually imposed them. Not that I've looked that hard though.
The SEC proposal notes that "during the period of market stress in March 2020 ... no money market fund imposed a fee or a gate."
¹ The distinction I am drawing between "adopting" and "imposing" can be understood from a footnote in a Fidelity explanation of the current rules. I use "imposing" to mean "actually charging a fee or actually restricting withdrawals" as opposed to merely allowing a fund to do this. By default, government funds were not allowed to impose fees or gates unless they explicitly adopted them. From Fidelity:

The final rules are clear that liquidity fees and/or redemption gates do not apply to U.S. Treasury or government money market mutual funds. The SEC is allowing U.S. Treasury or government money market mutual funds to add liquidity fees and/or redemption gates to a fund, but only after shareholders receive 60 days’ written advance notice.

For interested holders of BIAWX I received this message in my Fidelity account: A short-term capital gain of 0.14699 per share and long-term capital gain of 0.76367 per share, declared on 12/14/2021, is pending on this position."

yogibearbull +1 I also got trapped in 2020 & decided not to reverse RMD . It cost be around $900. Live & learn, Derf

I used to be in take-RMD-early camp. But then 2020 happened. When the RMD was reversed at first, it didn't apply to me because I took it too early. But later, it was reversed to include everybody and I took advantage of it. And I also joined the camp of take-RMD-later (Nov/Dec). So, this year, I took it in November.
But potential yearend CG distributions had no impact on my timing.
Of course, if you are planning to do Roth Conversions, then take care of RMDs before that.

This year's RMD is based on 12/31/2020 ending balance. So let's say that prior to December 31st, 2020 you took distributions for income. Those T-IRA distributions would have lowered your 2020 end of year T-IRA balance impacting your RMD calculation.
I am assuming you are referring to ST/LT capital gains distributions which often happen in December. If those distributions remain in T-IRA status then I would say, "no, there is no advantage".
This article might be of help:

Required minimum distributions (RMDs) are calculated off of last year’s end of year value and need to be taken out by the end of the year. That means you could take the RMD out as early as January 1st or as late as December 31st, but when should you?
There are a lot of differing opinions when it comes to this question. Most articles on the subject definitively say either “you should take it early in the year” or “you should take it late in the year” with no qualification and not much justification. In reality, the answer is: it depends.

the-complete-guide-to-timing-your-rmd

@teapot After listening to only part of that podcast so far, I am reconsidering opening a position in PRFRX. bank loans and some junk. Giroux sang its praises.
EDITED TO ADD: I've never owned a bank loan fund before. Why do I see NO BANKS listed in the portfolio? ( at Morningstar.)

Bank loans are issued by below investment-grade companies and pay a floating rate typically pegged to LIBOR.
From a credit perspective, they are similar to high-yield bonds but have a senior position in the capital structure.
Multiple industries (health care, IT, etc.) make up the bank loan market.
Here's a M* article with additional bank loan details and specific information regarding PRFRX.

Howdy @hank
Just fiddl'in here. I compared a few of the previously mentioned funds; being JHQAX , SPY (baseline), TMSRX and ABRZX.
Each chart is a 6 month before and after using SPY as the benchmark; at its low price during the period.
Chart 1 compare (July 2, 2018-July 3, 2019) is for the Xmas eve market melt in 2018. The SPY high in this period was about Oct. 3, 2018 and time frame low was on Dec. 24.
For SPY, the high to low was -19.2%.
CHART 1
Chart 2 is the Covid melt period, being from Sept. 20, 2019-Sept. 20, 2020. The SPY high in this period was about Feb. 19, 2020 and time frame low was on March 23, 2020.
For SPY, the high to low was -33.7%.
CHART 2
Following the charts to the right edge, one may view the recovery price date area and to the far right edge; performance for 6 months after the low price for each entry.
Pillow time here.
Remain curious,
Catch

JHQAX (reviewed series) annual distributions have been about 1% (though M* shows the fund has about 40% annual turnover). My thought was to put it in a taxable account. The inevitable question is, how tax risky is it to put it in a taxable account? It seems this fund provides a 15% downside protection, if S&P 500 falls 20% or more (no protection for first 5% loss). In a choppy, sideways market, it could lose more than the SPY because of the cost of its option outlays and the Calls written may not fetch as much premium as they have in the past. It would be a tragedy if the fund ends up distributing a lot of cap gains in a year when it is not performing well, which is probably the scenario when it would trigger cap gains because of AUM outflows. Prior to November 2021, the only month of net outflows was March 2020. The other month of net outflows was November 2021, which was a surprise to me. What do its shareholders expect from it? What would constitute "not performing well" for this fund? I do not know the psychological make up of a typical investor in this fund as it is not a mainstream strategy. (May be I should head over to the Bogleheads forum and see if there is an interest there for this strategy - I am told those guys tend to be buy and holders!)
As an aside, its performance from inception (2014) until the beginning of Covid is about the same (more or less) as a good high yield fund but bond funds had falling rates as a tail wind - may be not a fair comparison.
Please share your reasonable comments / thoughts.

With due respect, I do not find your analysis of the inner workings or risk mitigation features of this fund far superior to mine. I trust Lipper, The Financial Times and other sources referenced to be fact based. It’s not about speaking with God or not. It’s about delving into the workings of a fund that promotes itself as a safer alternative to many competitive investments. It may well be that. What’s wrong with poking and prodding a bit before sending your hard earned money?

The dominant effect of the FAANG stocks over the S&P500 magnified even more after spring 2020. There was a short period (winter 2020 thru summer 2021) where the market broadened to allow the cyclical value stocks to out-perform (large and small caps). Now the large cap growth stocks have returned. My smaller cap funds are trailing their larger cap funds.

Thanks everyone for excellent discussion. A quick cursory glance at JHQAX reveals a few insights:
At Lipper, it scores in the highest percentile pretty much across the board. MaxFunds rates this outstanding (97%). The site estimates the fund’s “worst case” as -35% in a year compared to -30% for TMSRX. Lipper gives it a very low beta - but higher than TMSRX. A couple places to check downside are 2018 Qtr. 4 and 2020 Qtr 1. For both it bested equities by a lot, loosing roughly 5%. TMSRX held up slightly better, loosing 3-4%. 5 year performance (JHQAX) is much higher than any alternative funds I own - though the lifetime is shorter. I’ve recently researched funds using put / call options (which this fund claims to use) and have a positive take on them, generally, for defense in what appears a frothy market. Puts, in particular, protect. So far so good.
When I compare holdings on Lipper this fund comes up as mostly equities (98%) and appears heavily loaded with the FANG-types that have led the market higher (ie: Tesla, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon). I can’t see evidence of substantial use of derivatives / shorts. Best guess* is that it’s 90% or more long - but could be wrong. When I look at holdings for a couple alternatives I use (ABRZX, TMSRX) the numbers are “flakey” - showing very low equity levels and high cash or Treasury bond levels. Such (“mixed / skewed”) readings are more typical of “non-correlated” funds which seek to protect against prolonged equity declines thru extensive use of derivatives. (Funds leaning on put & call options often reveal 90% Treasury bond exposure.) One more I looked at is HSGFX - a bit of a turkey. However, Hussman’s 50/50 positioning of equities and bonds is telling (likely reflects substantial use of puts & calls). So … while appealing in a lot of ways, I’m not ready to buy this one as an “alternative” fund replacement yet. Still - I understand the appeal and will follow this one closely.
Worth looking at: https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/tearsheet/summary?s=JHQAX
* If you click the “Assets & Holdings“ tab at the top of the FT link above, it will show the fund 97+% long equity and 0% short.

My wife and I own....a lot, for a long time. Over 10+years it compares very favorably to the VG large growth ETF (VOOG)but in the last 4yrs it HAS gotten slammed. At the same time is BEAT a mid-cap growth ETFs since LARGE has beaten the snot out of everything else. The COVID Bear seems to have been a turning point, getting left in the dust since late winter/Early spring 2020. MFO Premium has VOOG as a lower risk 4/5 compared to VG Capital Opp. Both are 5/5 overall. VOOG is 38% Tech,11% Healthcare so...no way Cap Opps can compete with that.

IMO PCI and PKO held at loss can be swapped for PDI today, Dec 10 until 4:00 PM Eastern without triggering wash-sale. They are similar but not identical until after 4:00 PM. The new PDI trades on Dec 13, Mon.
This if one needs tax-losses to offset gains THIS year. Long-term holders can just hold on to PCI, PKO, PDI and they will have the new PDI on Monday.

Option pricing could crimp JHQAX future returns. As the stock market becomes long in the tooth, Put premiums are likely to go up and Call premiums are likely to go down. Since March 2020, Calls have been hot and Puts have not been so much which further helped the fund in a rocketing stock market. So, I think setting expectations to pre-Covid time frame is more reasonable (a la 7% or so). (Above all, understanding what I own is important to me, even if they produce less than what I do not understand.)

@catch22, Thanks for the chart. I was not sure, with the chart, if you were agreeing with my statement that until the beginning of Covid, it performed more or less similar to a good High Yield bond fund or you wanted me to see some other aspect I had not mentioned. Please spell it out. Interestingly, pre March / April 2020, JHQAX was pretty anchored to ARTFX but after that date interest rates have only gone up and JHQAX accelerated higher from ARTFX - may be that just proved JHQAX's worth as a good replacement for (HY) bond funds, which per MikeM was part of the i(e)nquiry in this forum earlier this year.
Your comments: "My expectation for MFO members is that alternative funds are not necessarily a bright spot for money over the years."
If you meant the above for the future, please share your thoughts on why.
"AND if one doesn't hold at least 10% of a portfolio in an alternative fund, any gain or loss is noise; and of little benefit to the portfolio."
I am deducing from your statement that you do not expect JHQAX's historic 10% per year (not compounded) return (somewhat lower return, pre-Covid) to continue. But do you expect it to perform worse than a good HY fund, say, ARTFX? I am not one to quibble about predictions about the future but it would be helpful to know your thoughts. I am going to divert some of my bond (low volatility) sleeve to this fund. I do not own any dedicated investment grade fixed income.
I am not a big fan of alternative funds in general because a lot of them are idiosyncratic and potentially have a large range of outcomes. I experimented with a few of them over the years and never felt I understood their behavior. The last one I owned was an AQR fund - some 15% of my portfolio - I can not say I understood that fund at anytime of my ownership. JHQAX is very simple and its relative outcomes are reasonably predictable - or let us say, I understand it as well as any equity or bond fund I currently own. For the relative low volatility it is expected to have, I owning >10% of portfolio in JHQAX is not a problem.

@yogibearbull: thanks for that link to the DoubleLine filing. The derivative and options strategies described in the filing sound very complicated, but maybe the same sort of thing has been going on in DSEEX and CAPE all along. ("I would be shocked to learn that gambling has been going on in our funds," said the unflappable spokesperson.) On top of those complications is the CEF format, one which usually favors the issuer of a new fund, but not the early shareholders. As the vast majority of CEFs invest in fixed income and seek yield, it is not surprising that this prospectus for the DoubleLine Shiller Cape Enhanced Income Fund lists generation of income as its first mentioned purpose. Capital appreciation appears to take up the rear as a goal.

Actual Returns
Average Annual Returns
Description 1 Month 3 Month 6 Month 1 Year 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 10 Yrs Inception
12/2013
SEC Pre-Liquidation2 -7.51% -5.47% -1.81% +7.51% +7.30% +8.51% -- +7.11%
SEC Post-Liquidation -4.42% -3.21% -1.01% +4.59% +5.76% +6.83% -- +5.81%
Tax Cost Ratio -- -- -- 0.22% 0.35% 0.32% -- --
Tax Cost Ratio represents the percentage-point reduction in returns that results from Federal income taxes (before shares in the fund are sold, and assuming the highest Federal tax bracket).
1Numbers are adjusted for possible sales charges, and assume reinvestment of dividends and capital gains over each time period.
2Pre-liquidation (before sale of shares): includes taxes on fund's distributions of dividends and capital gains. Figures based on highest Federal income tax bracket. State and local taxes are not
Taxing issues with JHQAX from Schwab
I also hold a small toe hold, add me to the list.