Reviewing chart activity just before the big melt in Sept., 2008 and related to @Derf and the question of "just before" the sell off; I've placed a few investments in the below linked chart. And @hank for your review.
For the most part the overall U.S. equity sectors were flat for July and August of 2008; and the logic for the starting point.
From the chart, I will place the rounded total return values; and to note that these numbers reflect a buy and hold with whatever dollar amount was invested on Aug. 13, 2008. These numbers include distributions (dividends, cap. gains).
--- QQQ = 319%
--- FSPHX = 314%
--- FDGRX = 272%
--- VPMCX = 214%
--- FCNTX = 203%
--- SPY = 174%
A few selected, widely held funds chart Aug. 12, 2008 to date

This 466% number includes the additional contributions people have made into these plans over the past decade. Without that inclusion the gains in value would have been lower. I’m wondering, too, if it includes self-directed 401Ks which provide a tax haven to the very rich and have much higher contribution limits. These would have grown disproportionately to the 401Ks most wage earners have. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jrose/2018/07/17/the-1-account-all-wealthy-people-have-that-you-probably-dont/
I think more needs to be done here to try and differentiate how much of this increased wealth went to the small investor (typically working a 9-5 shift) and how much of it actually reflects gains at the upper end of the income level (perhaps the top 10 or 20% of the population). I fear digging deeper might only serve to demonstrate the growing wealth disparity among the population over the past decade.
All that said ... the domestic equity markets are up something like 300-400% since the bottom almost exactly 10 years ago, March 9, 2009. (Seems to me the DJI got close to 6500.) So, assuming all participants remained 100% in equities in their 401 K plans, the numbers have a semblance of reality. I doubt that’s the case however. Most diversify. Some borrow from plans. Some types of investments lag the S&P, etc.
-
@Derf - Good question. Here’s some crude calculations (from a non-math guy): Broad U.S equity markets fell around 50% during the bear market (‘07-‘09). So I’ll start by cutting in half a $100 401K balance. That leaves $50 by the time the bear ended. Than I’ll multiply the remaining balance by 466% to reflect its growth over the next decade. That results in a gain of 233% on the original investment (including new contributions) from just before the crash to roughly the present (a 12 year period). The resultant average gain in value is 19%.( But with compounding factored in it would be less.)

The Spaceship 2020 commander will likely back down from more than holding off on auto tariffs just announced. One must suspect, regardless of any critical thinking on this part, that the perception of a fading economy and falling investment markets is the last thing he wants before the voting booths open.

Lastly, I couldn't find a specific listing for the symbol, WTF

I've had a lot of funds with this symbol over the years @catch22, as in WTF did I buy this fund for :)
A few things going on in my head I guess. One is a post from a few weeks ago with the question, do you really need an EM fund? The other is the performance record for SFGIX over the past 3+ years. On the positive side, it is a tamer way to play the EM category if you choose to be there. That plus the managers thoughtful approach to capital protection IS why I bought it.
Oh, well, just thinking out loud. Thanks for the discussion.

Hi @Derf:
FWIW
I'm looking to do a little buying, in some of my good dividend paying equity funds, like (INUTX & SVAAX), should the S&P 500 Index venture into the 2750 range or below. INUTX has a yield of about 3.0% and SVAAX has a yield of about 3.5%. I'm not looking to add to my capital appreciation type equity funds, such as (KAUAX), at this time. US Treasuries simply are not offering enough yield for me to invest there when I can get a 1 year CD in the 2.4% to 2.5% yield range. Just last week I bought an 18mo CD paying 2.45%. In comparison, my money market mutual funds are currently paying north of 2.25%.

Here’s how TRP describes PRWCX : “The fund invests primarily in the common stocks of established U.S companies we believe to have above-average potential for capital growth. Common stocks typically constitute at least half of total assets. The remaining assets are generally invested in other securities, including convertible securities, corporate and government debt, foreign securities, and futures and options.” https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/PRWCX
Here’s how they describe RPBAX: “The fund seeks to provide capital growth, current income, and preservation of capital through a portfolio of stocks and fixed-income securities. The fund normally invests approximately 65% of total assets in U.S. and foreign common stocks and 35% in fixed-income securities. At least 25% of total assets will be invested in senior fixed-income securities.” https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/RPBAX
Here’s how they describe RPGAX: “The fund seeks to invest in a broadly diversified global portfolio of investments, including U.S. and international stocks, bonds, and alternative investments. The fund uses an active asset allocation strategy in conjunction with fundamental research to select individual investments ... Under normal conditions, the fund's portfolio will consist of approximately 60% stocks; 30% bonds, money market securities, and other debt instruments; and 10% alternative investments.” https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/RPGAX
While it’s common to refer to PRWCX as a balanced fund, Price’s RPBAX would appear to better fit that description. And RPGAX at first blush also appears to be more accurately termed a balanced fund. However, with RPGAX Price’s approach seems to point more in the direction of an equity-centric hedge fund, employing various hedging strategies (and also investing in an outside party hedge fund).
I’m not sure what to call PRWCX. It does have some similarities to a balanced fund, but Price assigns it more of a “go-anywhere” mandate. Seems to me that over the 25 years I’ve owned it, different managers have taken it in quite different directions. Each has been successful in his own way. It’s my fourth largest holding at TRP. RPGAX, RPSIX and TMSRX are all ahead of it. That has everything to do with my overall allocation approach and isn’t a reflection of which fund I think is better. If I had to guess 10-15 years out, however, I’d guess RPGAX might outdistance it.

FYI: ( Unfortunately, PRWCX is closed to new investors.)
Hi, I'm Jason Kephart, senior analyst on Morningstar's Multi-Asset and Alternatives Research Team, and I'm joined today by David Giroux, portfolio manager of T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation, a fund that's been on a Joe DiMaggio-like streak over the last decade. It hasn't finished worse than 29th in the category over any single year over the last 10 years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/928989/the-sector-powering-t-rowe-price-capital-appreciat.html
M* Snapshot: PRWCX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PRWCX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot PRWCX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/prwcx
PRWCX Is Ranked #6 In The(50/70 E) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/allocation-50-to-70-equity/t-rowe-price-capital-appreciation-fund/prwcx

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/794105/000093247119007082/ltbond497052019.htm
497 1 ltbond497052019.htm VANGUARD LONG-TERM BOND INDEX FUND 497
Vanguard Long-Term Bond Index Fund
Supplement Dated May 10, 2019, to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus for Investor Shares and Admiral™ Shares Dated April 26, 2019
Effective July 10, 2019, the Fund will charge a 0.50% fee on all purchases of its Investor Shares and Admiral Shares, including shares that you purchase by exchange from another Vanguard fund. Purchases that result from reinvested dividend or capital gains distributions are not subject to the purchase fee.
Unlike a sales charge or a load paid to a broker or a fund management company, purchase fees are paid directly to the Fund to offset the costs of buying securities. This fee is separate from, and in addition to, other expenses charged by the Fund.
Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Text Changes
Effective July 10, 2019, the following will replace similar text under the heading “Fees and Expenses” in the Fund Summary section:
Fees and Expenses
The following table describes the fees and expenses you may pay if you buy and hold Investor Shares or Admiral Shares of the Fund.
Shareholder Fees
(Fees paid directly from your investment)
Investor Shares Admiral Shares
Sales Charge (Load) Imposed on Purchases None None
Purchase Fee 0.50% 0.50%
Sales Charge (Load) Imposed on Reinvested Dividends None None
Redemption Fee None None
Account Service Fee (for fund account balances
below $10,000) $20/year $20/year
Annual Fund Operating Expenses
(Expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment)
Investor Shares Admiral Shares1
Management Fees 0.13% 0.04%
12b-1 Distribution Fee None None
Other Expenses 0.02% 0.03%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses 0.15% 0.07%
1 The expense information shown in the table reflects estimated amounts for the current fiscal year.
Examples
The following examples are intended to help you compare the cost of investing in the Fund’s Investor Shares or Admiral Shares with the cost of investing in other mutual funds. They illustrate the hypothetical expenses that you would incur over various periods if you were to invest $10,000 in the Fund’s shares. These examples assume that the shares provide a return of 5% each year and that total annual fund operating expenses remain as stated in the preceding table. You would incur these hypothetical expenses whether or not you were to redeem your investment at the end of the given period. Although your actual costs may be higher or lower, based on these assumptions your costs would be:
1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years
Investor Shares $65 $98 $134 $241
Admiral Shares $57 $72 $89 $139
Prospectus Text Changes
In the More on the Funds section, a new section “Purchase and Transaction Fees” will be added after the “Temporary Investment Measures” section:
Purchase and Transaction Fees
Vanguard Long-Term Bond Index Fund charges a fee of 0.50% on all purchases of shares, including shares that you purchase by exchange from another Vanguard fund.
In addition, Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund, Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index Fund, and Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund each reserve the right to charge the following transaction fees to investors whose aggregate share purchases into a Fund equal or exceed the following amounts:
Vanguard Fund Transaction Fee Aggregate Purchases
Total Bond Market Index Fund 0.25% Over $500 million
Short-Term Bond Index Fund 0.15 Over $200 million
Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund 0.25 Over $100 million
Each of the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund, Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index Fund, and Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund may impose these transaction fees if an investor’s aggregate purchases into a Fund over a 12-month period exceed, or are expected to exceed, the indicated amounts upon notice to the client in conjunction with a purchase that triggers application of the fees. The transaction fees will be assessed only if the client elects to proceed with the purchase. Generally, these fees will not apply to transactions coordinated in advance between a client and Vanguard.
Unlike a sales charge or a load paid to a broker or a fund management company, purchase and transaction fees are paid directly to the Fund to offset the costs of buying securities.
See Investing With Vanguard for more information about fees.
In the Investing With Vanguard section, the following will replace similar text that begins with the heading “Transaction Fees on Purchases”:
Purchase and Transaction Fees
Vanguard Long-Term Bond Index Fund charges a fee of 0.50% on purchases of shares, including shares that you purchase by exchange from another Vanguard fund.
In addition, Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund, Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index Fund, and Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund each reserve the right to charge the following transaction fees to investors whose aggregate share purchases into a Fund equal or exceed the following amounts:
Vanguard Fund Transaction Fee Aggregate Purchases
Total Bond Market Index Fund 0.25% Over $500 million
Short-Term Bond Index Fund 0.15 Over $200 million
Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund 0.25 Over $100 million
Each of the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund, Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index Fund, and Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund may impose these transaction fees if an investor’s aggregate purchases into a Fund over a 12-month period exceed, or are expected to exceed, the indicated amounts upon notice to the client in conjunction with a purchase that triggers application of the fees. The transaction fees will be assessed only if the client elects to proceed with the purchase. Generally, these fees will not apply to transactions coordinated in advance between a client and Vanguard.
Purchase fees will not apply to Vanguard fund account purchases in the following circumstances: (1) purchases of shares through reinvested dividends or capital gains distributions; (2) share transfers, rollovers, or reregistrations within the same fund; (3) conversions of shares from one share class to another in the same fund; (4) purchases in kind; and (5) share rollovers to an IRA within the same Vanguard fund for plans in which Vanguard serves as a recordkeeper. Unlike a sales charge or a load paid to a broker or a fund management company, purchase and transaction fees are paid directly to the Fund to offset the costs of buying securities.
© 2019 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor...
(includes institutional classes also)

FYI: Quantitative investment strategies suffered poor performance last year, but there isn’t one intuitive way to pinpoint exactly why it happened, said Cliff Asness, managing principal and chief investment officer at AQR Capital Management.
It’s easier to explain why one individual component of a multifactor strategy underperformed, such as why the value factor lagged, he said. But explaining total performance in down years is difficult, especially over the short to medium term.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/aqr-s-asness--no-simple-explanation-for-quant-failure-in-2018-44771.html?print

“In contrast, Wintergreen's shows this narrow slice solidly across the growth column. He's been investing in growth stocks since at least 2014”
Thanks @msf - Sounds like you nailed it. And I hate it when managers deviate from their (stated / normal / assumed ) approach in pursuit of better gains. I guess I’m confused as to whether Winters conveyed his emphasis on growth to his investors?
Hope Winters can find work somewhere else. (I still think he sounds like a nice guy.)

FYI: While stocks staged a remarkable comeback from Monday’s deep decline, they still closed in the red. A day later, and the sellers are back at it.
Long-suffering market bears, like John Hussman, have to be savoring this kind of action. After all, when things turn south, Hussman’s fortunes turn north.
In fact, riding the cred he earned from calling prior market collapses, his assets under management swelled to almost $7 billion. Now, however, after years of underperformance, that figure stands at a fraction of what it once was.
Hussman’s flagship $312-million Strategic Growth Fund HSGFX, +0.17% , which focuses on “the protection of capital during unfavorable market conditions,” has had a rough go of it during this relentless bull market, shedding almost 9% a year, on average, since 2014, according to Morningstar.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho-hum-a-65-market-plunge-would-be-run-of-the-mill-fund-manager-says-2019-05-07/print

@Jerry- Well, I started to put together a summary for you, but realized that the article is so long and detailed that it wasn't possible to do that without really violating their material.
Essentially the article gives a detailed description and history of TD funds, and relates how some investors evidently thought that such funds somehow provided a good degree of safety from capital loss, especially as the funds neared maturity.
The report also gives a typically balanced set of opinions pro and con on whether or not these funds are suitable for everyone (of course not), and discusses some of the available options and alternatives.
I realize that this is a pretty poor overview of the article, but sometimes an accurate short summary of a long report isn't really feasible. ( Just ask Attorney General William P. Barr about that.)
OJ

Tend to agree with Ol’Skeet that number of funds doesn’t matter a lot. Getting the number down may well be a sign that you’ve successfully identified the funds that are most aligned with your own personal needs. So I suggest you view a lower number more as a measure of how well you’ve identified the right funds for you rather than a goal in itself.
A few things important to me in adding or culling funds (highly subjective criteria):
- Low fees
- Diversification across fiduciaries (fund houses or other)
- Diversification across asset classes
- Moderate exposure to international markets
- Superior downside protection relative to peers
Absent from my list is performance. Perhaps that’s due to it being so obvious a consideration. In addition, capital preservation becomes more important in retirement - especially later on. I’ve always strived to keep the number under 20, believing that meets my needs and is fairly easy to get my head around. Currently I hold 15 funds across 4 different management houses. In addition, I have one ultra-short bond fund that I treat the same as cash.
RPGAX is one of the 3 balanced funds I own - the only one with significant international exposure. I suspect the choice has as much to do with my preference for T. Rowe Price as with anything else. But RPGAX is a good fund with reasonable fees.

Junkster

I referenced this symbol back in January 2018 and have been following it since. While impressed with its performance, there is a caveat. It is prone to out of the ordinary daily trading gains. For instance most of its outperformance YTD can be attributed to an outsized daily gain one day in January. It was the same way last year where just a couple trading days contributed to its yearly gain. I worry that could cut both ways and you could see an outsized daily decline. Also, how much longer can the good times continue in securitized credit more specifically non agency rmbs.

The fund has a limited number of holdings because of its current size. So a move in a single security can move the fund’s performance on a daily basis. I would say that more than a few days influenced RCTIX performance last year, and most daily moves in most funds are noise.
In many cases, only a few days account for the performance of many investments.
For example if you missed the 20 best days in the stock market over the past 20 years(1/99-12/18) your annualized return was -.33% vs 5.62%.
Yes, in January they monetized a bond at a significantly higher price than the pricing services were pricing it at. Their investment thesis on the bond was realized faster than they had anticipated, and when they were offered a very attractive price, decided to monetize it.
Also, there's more to securitized credit than just non-agency RMBS. They don’t know how long the good times can last, but relative to other credit sectors such as investment grade or high yield, they think securitized credit and non-agency RMBS can still offer strong relative returns.
Non-agency RMBS won’t produce the returns they have in the past, but today they still offer good yields with capital appreciation opportunities. Housing continues to improve, borrowers continue to pay their mortgages, and loan to values continue to improve. So they think these underlying trends will continue to support the non-Agency RMBS market -- which I noted in my article.
JoJo26

That's what you get with less liquid underlying instruments... Honestly, a daily liquid mutual fund probably isn't the best package to offer a strategy that is largely structured credit.
If the fund gets larger and then subsequently sees large redemptions, it will be difficult to unwind positions without taking severe down marks.

With regards to liquidity, the fund has a 60% investment grade minimum specifically designed to meet the daily liquidity needs of investors. Between cash and Agency mortgage TBA’s over 60% of the fund could be in cash tomorrow.
Additionally, regarding the non-agency RMBS, there is strong demand for this paper, and it can be liquidated quickly as well. The sector has recovered substantially and trades very well.
Investors would be wise to consider fund size with regards to liquidity in non-agency RMBS. Many of the mega funds who would need to liquidate billions of dollars in Non-Agency RMBS would have a much more difficult time than a smaller fund such as RCTIX.
Last, RCTIX invests across the capital structure of the individual securities they own. In many cases, they've invested in the senior tranches of the structure. Also, the fund is not investing in odd lot securities that can be difficult to trade.
I hope that this additional information is helpful. I'm done reporting on the fund and moving on.
Best.

I'll try this another way. What follows is simplistic, but should suffice.
It's Jan 2; there's a new ETF. It wants to invest in stock ABC, trading at $12. So it sells its first share to an authorized participant (AP) in exchange for one share of ABC. The ETF share now represents 100% of a fund portfolio holding one share of ABC.
It's Dec 15; ABC is trading up 25%, at $15. Another two APs come along and each exchanges a share of ABC for a share of the ETF. There are now three ETF shares outstanding. Each represents a 1/3 ownership of the portfolio of 3 shares of ABC.
The unrealized gains in the portfolio are: $3 + $0 + $0 since the first share appreciated.
It's Dec 18; the ETF manager wants to swap all of the fund's ABC shares, trading at $15, for shares of XYZ, also trading at $15. He could sell ABC, realize a $3 gain, and buy XYZ. Then later in the month, when cap gains are distributed, whoever owned each of the ETF shares would get a $1 cap gain div. ($3 portfolio gain divided among three shares.)
But an AP holding one ETF share decides to sell back its one share. Using redemption in kind, the AP is handed one share of ABC. Not just any share, but the original, lowest cost-basis share.
Now you might think that, like gifting shares, that ABC share would carry with it its original $12 cost basis. Oh, lucky day. There's a tax law that says when you redeem in kind, the cost basis resets. So the AP has one share of ABC with a cost basis of $15. Cap gain? Poof, gone!
The ETF swaps the other two shares of ABC (with cost basis $15/share) for two shares of XYZ. No gain is realized by the ETF, and no gain is realized by the AP when it sells the share it just received.
-------------
Same example, but with a Vanguard fund.
It's Jan 2; there's a new fund. It wants to invest in stock ABC, trading at $12. It sells an Admiral class share to an investor for $12 in cash, and uses that cash to buy one share of ABC. The Admiral share now represents 100% of a portfolio holding one share of ABC, so it's worth $12. Exactly what the investor just paid for it.
It's Dec 15; ABC is trading up 25%, at $15, so the fund (with one share outstanding) is also trading at $15. A second investor comes along and buys one Investor class share at $15. The fund uses that cash to purchase a share of ABC. There is now one Admiral class share outstanding and one Investor class share outstanding, each representing a 50% interest in a portfolio of two shares of ABC (worth $30 total).
Same day; an AP comes along and exchanges one share of ABC for one ETF share of the fund. There are now three shares outstanding (one each of ETF, Admiral, Investor class), each representing a 1/3 interest in a portfolio holding three shares of ABC.
It's Dec 18; the fund manager wants to swap all of the fund's ABC shares, trading at $15, for shares of XYZ, also trading at $15. He could sell ABC, realize a $3 gain, and buy XYZ. Then later in the month, when cap gains are distributed, whoever owned each of the various shares would get a $1 cap gain div. ($3 portfolio gain divided among three shares.)
But an AP holding the one outstanding ETF share returns and sells back the share. Using redemption in kind, the AP is handed one share of ABC. Not just any share, but the original, low cost basis share.
Once again, the cap gains associated with that ABC share goes poof! Meanwhile, the fund is left with two shares of ABC (with cost basis $15/share). It swaps those for shares of XYZ. No gain is recognized by the mutual fund, and no gain is recognized by the AP when it sells the ABC share it just received.
-------------
All the magic is with the ETF. The OEF shares are simply along for the ride.

this is the second article on tax wash out- it also leaves a lot to be explained but more than the first
The first to benefit was the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. Investors’ end-of-year tax forms abruptly stopped showing capital gains in 2001
"Top executives at the Malvern, Pennsylvania-based firm don’t want U.S. policymakers looking too closely at how they’re doing it, according to a former insider."
"But a review of financial statements and trading data shows that Vanguard relies substantially on so-called heartbeat trades, which wash away taxes by rapidly pumping stocks in and out of a fund. These controversial transactions are common in exchange-traded funds—a record $98 billion of them took place last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News—but only Vanguard has used them routinely to also benefit mutual funds."
"Here’s how it works: Vanguard attaches a more tax-efficient ETF to an existing mutual fund. Then the ETF siphons appreciated stocks out of the mutual fund without incurring taxes, often using heartbeat trades. Robert Gordon, who has written about the concept and is president of Twenty-First Securities Corp. in New York, calls it a tax “dialysis machine.”
If I personally did a wash sale I would get wacked. Still don't understand!
"Rapidly pumping money into and out of the exchange-traded portion of the Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund removes taxable gains for the benefit of the mutual fund’s shareholders."
"Rich Powers," ( YOU SLY DOG) "Vanguard’s head of ETF product management, acknowledged the design’s tax advantages. But he said in an interview that they’re not the driver of the company’s strategy and that all of its trading complies with the law."
"Taxable Gains Begone
Unlike competitors that follow similar indexes, Vanguard mutual funds stopped saddling investors with ◼ taxable gains once ETF share classes were added."
"The main benefit of avoiding taxable gains in a mutual fund is tax deferral. Funds distribute their taxable gains to investors, who pay income taxes on them in the same year. By avoiding tax events within the fund, investors get to delay taxes until they sell the fund, which could be years or decades later. It’s akin to a zero-interest loan from the IRS."
"Theoretically, owning stocks through a mutual fund or ETF works the same way. If the fund sells a stock for a profit, the taxable gain shows up on each investor’s end-of-year Form 1099."
"But thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, ETFs almost always avoid incurring taxable gains."
Any one else know about this loophole???
"The rule says that a fund can avoid recognizing taxable gains on an appreciated stock if the shares are used to pay off a withdrawing investor. The rule applies to both ETFs and mutual funds, but mutual funds rarely take advantage of it because their investors almost always want cash."
"ETFs use it all the time, because they don’t transact directly with regular investors. Instead, they deal with Wall Street middlemen such as banks and market makers. It’s those firms, not retail investors, that expand the ETF by depositing assets or shrink it by withdrawing. These transactions are usually done with stocks rather than cash. The middlemen, in turn, trade with regular investors who want to buy and sell ETF shares."
What is the charges of fees by the middlemen surely they are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts??
Does the VANGARD and the middlemen eat all your capital gain?
To me it looks like Vanguard has found a way to feast on your cap gain so you don't have to pay taxes on them. How sweet a deal------ For Vanguard and the MIDDLEMEN!!!
THE DEVILS IN THE DETAILS
QUOTES FROM Bloomberg
JUST MY 2 CENTOVOS!!

I referenced this symbol back in January 2018 and have been following it since. While impressed with its performance, there is a caveat. It is prone to out of the ordinary daily trading gains. For instance most of its outperformance YTD can be attributed to an outsized daily gain one day in January. It was the same way last year where just a couple trading days contributed to its yearly gain. I worry that could cut both ways and you could see an outsized daily decline. Also, how much longer can the good times continue in securitized credit more specifically non agency rmbs.

Agree with msf. The article is non-sense. Blackrock and State Street Advisors would be guilty too with their iShares and Powershares ETFs for not paying out capital gain and only dividends. Vanguard patent describes how their ETFs are created while invest in the same underlying stocks in their respective index funds (Admiral and Investor shares).

Virtually everything in the article is simply a description of how ETFs make cap gains magically disappear. This is why ETFs are marketed as "tax efficient".
All that Vanguard did was make an ETF that owns the same underlying portfolio as Admiral class and Investor class shares. So when the ETF shares make cap gains disappear from the portfolio, there are no cap gains to distribute among the shareholders - none to the ETF class shareholders, none to the Admiral class shareholders, none to the Investor class shareholders.
A very quick search (for Vanguard VIPER patent) turned up this article. Not great, but it does cover what I wrote above, and was published in 2005.
http://www.exchangetradedfunds.com/news/190905Vanpatent.html

Unlike other ETFs, the Vipers, or Vanguard Index Participation Equity Receipts, are separate share-classes of Vanguard's index funds. In contrast, rival firms' ETFs are "stand-alone" funds. ...
Vanguard claims a symbiotic relationship exists between the Vipers ETFs and the index funds. ...
The way in which all ETFs create and redeem shares provides tax benefits. ...
First, ETFs are not forced to sell stock and raise cash to meet investor redemptions, which can result in distributing capital gains to remaining shareholders. Plus, the in-kind redemption process enables the manager to offload stocks that have risen in price, allowing the ETF "to flush out unrealized capital gains from the portfolio on an ongoing basis, assuming there are sufficient redemptions to do so," ...
As a result, the Viper ETF share class enables the manager of the corresponding index-fund class to "wash out" potential capital gains in the mutual fund.

@msf - I understand that but the question remains, are the capital gain taxes not being paid? To my uneducated eyes, someone, somewhere should be paying them whether the sale happens in a heartbeat or over coffee. The article seems to say that the gains are evaporated. Please refer me to the old news you speak of. Thank you.