Capital Group/American Funds is the class champion. It has up to 19 OEF classes - load, no-load (529, taxable, Retirement), and now has several ETFs. It has funds for many price points.
I have had some lowest ER R6 classes in 403b.

....Which is why I've steered clear. How many stinking fund-classes do ya NEED? Nothing should be that complicated.

Capital Group/American Funds is the class champion. It has up to 19 OEF classes - load, no-load (529, taxable, Retirement), and now has several ETFs. It has funds for many price points.
I have had some lowest ER R6 classes in 403b.

Good interview, thx.
As someone who has had a very large holding in Capital Group funds for nearly 20 years, I've been very pleased with them.

Thanks @hank. I found this quite interesting and positive with the content. I Have a lot invested in Capital Group. I put quite a bit in CGBL, the balanced fund and have a good holding in CGDV, dividend value. Also have a stake in CGGR, their domestic growth fund.

Gitlin stresses the importance of staying the course. The hazards of market timing. Some poignant comments about the adverse effects going public can have on an investment company. Not fond of DIY investors. What caught my attention was that he replaced highly capable fixed income head Mary Miller at T Rowe Price in 2009 after Miller left the firm for a position in Washington. I’ve long wondered why Price’s fixed income division came up lacking after Miller departed. Now I know. Says Gitlin, “I wasn’t qualified for that position.”

I'm actually considering CapitalOne because of that change. I want a backup card for foreign travel - no foreign transaction fee and preferably a MC (since I've got a Visa card for travel). Now that Capital One has switched, it meets my requirements.

I think people are making this too hard. The question is to compare what happened by selling/repurchasing vs. what would have happened by simply holding.
Holding: 1,000 shares before and after, plus an extra $87 in cash (from divs).
Sell/repurchase: 1,000 shares before and after, plus $290 in cash (as hank described)
The difference, as hank also described, is a net cash gain of $203.
There's more going on if one looks at cap gains. As yogi described, the clock gets reset if there was a gain based on the original cost of the shares. If there was a loss, it's a wash sale, no clock reset. But being in a tax-sheltered account, none of this matters.

As @yogibearbull pointed out, you seem to be missing the capital gain/loss on the sale of the original shares in your calculation.

Any comments on Primecap Core vs Primecap? I am considering adding Primecap Core to complement my current stake in Capital Opportunity fund. Compared to VHCAX, VPCCX leans more toward Large Caps (72% vs 66%) and Value (25% vs 20%), which should make it a good fit for my portfolio.

Eight or nine years of redemptions probably explains it.
BTW, those consistent redemptions have resulted in years and years of significant capital gains distributions. On an after-tax basis both of these funds have underperformed the S&P 500, by more than 100 bps a year for over a decade.

@hank, I used to own fixed income CEFs until sometime in 2021. After that I switched to trading them but not regularly as fixed income volatility has been high. Except for MLP CEFs, the only equity CEFs I ever owned are preferred stock CEFs which I treat as fixed income CEFs, but I have not owned preferred stock CEFs after 2020. Currently, I own the MLP allocation CEF, converting to fixed income CEF, PDX - but it is so small in my portfolio, after selling to buy another fixed income CEF, that it is not worth mentioning either. Now, I have difficulty with fixed income without leverage and so, fixed income CEFs in size would be too distracting for me. My hats off to folks that own levered fixed income CEFs (and MREITs) in an inverted yield curve environment.

@Roy - Yes the fund uses leverage. I'm unfamiliar with the term ROP. If you meant to say ROC (Return of Capital) there isn't any at this time (past year) and there has been very little if any during the course of its existence.
PIMCO Dynamic Income Fund

Good point on the liquidity issues if not adjusted for free-float. I guess liquidity is paramount for capital markets functioning.
I see heavy insider selling in some company shares for nearly year and no insider buying. I am also seeing hedge funds lightening up on some of the retail favored stocks. All these extra shares add to the free-float, which then impacts how much of the retail favored stocks are weighted in the index. (At least they are not doing it by trading volume.)
XLK methodology is a bit strange any way.
Let us see when Apple gets back what it is giving up in the index.

The use of free-float in indexes is sensible as that is the float that is publicly available. So, excluded are restricted stock (held by executives, directors, connected entities, etc), closely-held stock (insiders, major holders), Treasury stock (buybacks that aren't cancelled). If total market-cap is used, then funds will try to buy many more shares than are publicly available, and that would create a problem.
Many recent IPOs offer extreme examples (ARM, Saudi ARMCO - in Middle Eastern markets, etc) where only a small % of market-cap is issued.
Most other funds use proportional adjustments when caps are encountered. For example, if 3 stocks are eligible to be counted in 50% limitation, and they have approximately the same free-floats, then 3X = 50, or X = 0.1667, or 16.67% weight for each may be used. But the XLK formula knocks down the smallest (even by the tiniest amount), so 2X + 4.5 = 50, or X = 0.2275, or the weights 22.75%, 22.75%, 4.5%. That is what will cause this massive shift as NVDA used to be #3, but now AAPL is #3.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/career-map/sell-side/capital-markets/free-float/
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freefloatmethodology.asp

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1545440/000158064224003191/westwoodcapappinc_497.htm
497 1 westwoodcapappinc_497.htm 497
June 17, 2024
WESTWOOD CAPITAL APPRECIATION AND INCOME FUND
Class A Shares Ticker Symbol: WWTAX
Class C Shares Ticker Symbol: WTOCX
Institutional Shares Ticker Symbol: WLVIX
A Series of Ultimus Managers Trust
Supplement to the Prospectuses and Statement of Additional Information
dated February 28, 2024, as supplemented
On May 24, 2024, the Fund discontinued all sales of its shares, except shares purchased by existing shareholders through an established automatic investment plan, or shares acquired through the reinvestment of dividends and distributions. Effective July 16, 2024, shares of the Fund are no longer available for purchase and, at the close of business on July 16, 2024, all outstanding shares of the Fund will be redeemed at net asset value (the “Transaction”).
The Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”), in consultation with the Fund’s investment adviser, Westwood Management Corp. (the “Adviser”), determined and approved to discontinue the Fund’s operations based on, among other factors, the Adviser’s belief that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to discontinue the Fund’s operations. Through the date of the Transaction, the Adviser will continue to waive investment advisory fees and reimburse expenses of the Fund, as necessary, in order to maintain the Fund at its current expense limit, as specified in the Fund’s current Prospectus and Summary Prospectus.
In connection with the Transaction, the Board directed that: (i) all of the Fund’s portfolio securities be liquidated in an orderly manner not later than July 16, 2024; and (ii) all outstanding shareholder accounts on July 16, 2024 be closed and the proceeds of each account, less any required withholding, be sent to the shareholder’s address of record or to such other address as directed by the shareholder, including special instructions that may be needed for Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) and qualified pension and profit sharing accounts. As a result of the Transaction, the Fund’s portfolio holdings will be reduced to cash or cash equivalents. Accordingly, going forward, shareholders should not expect the Fund to achieve its stated investment objective.
Shareholders may redeem all or a portion of their shares of the Fund on any business day prior to July 16, 2024 as specified in the Fund’s Prospectus.
The Transaction will be considered for tax purposes a sale of Fund shares by shareholders, and shareholders should consult with their own tax advisors to ensure its proper treatment on their income tax returns. In addition, shareholders invested through an IRA or other tax-deferred account should consult the rules regarding the reinvestment of these assets. In order to avoid a potential tax issue, shareholders generally have 60 days from the date that proceeds are received to re-invest or “rollover” the proceeds into another IRA or qualified retirement account; otherwise, the proceeds may be required to be included in the shareholder’s taxable income for the current tax year.
If you have any questions regarding the Fund or the Transaction, please call the Fund toll free at 1-877-FUND-WHG (1-877-386-3944).
Investors Should Retain this Supplement for Future Reference.

@PRESSmUP Why no T-bill or cds ?

No specific reason. My current positions have good coverage within the FI space, provide a healthy distribution, good opportunity for capital appreciation, and liquidity if needed. I spent a fair amount of time examining the funds, so I'm pretty pleased with the folks managing the money.

From Bloomberg this evening:
”How the US Mopped Up a Third of Global Capital Flows Since Covid “
(Excerpt) “In the face of calls around the world to diversify out of the dollar in recent years, the US has nabbed almost one-third of all the investment that flowed across borders since Covid struck. An International Monetary Fund analysis sent by request to Bloomberg News shows that the share of global flows has climbed — not fallen — since a shortage of dollars in 2020 spooked global investors and the 2022 freezing of Russian assets stoked questions about respect for free movement of capital. The pre-pandemic US average share was just 18%, according to the IMF. “
Article by Enda Curran and Saleha Mohsin - Bloomberg Media / June 16, 2024

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/06/16/fareeds-take-europe-america-pace-gps-digvid.cnn

Insightful, but does the current US/Euro gap indicate future trend or represent a possible turning point? One thing for sure, the US will not stay this far ahead forever. There is good growth in the US, but possibly better value may be found overseas.

Ya, I ventured overseas years ago. The "old saw" was that Europe was "old money." I was looking for a bargain. And I had some EM holdings, too. These days, Europe is even more complicated: Ukraine war, Right-wing election gains. One currency, but many different national budgets.... I did well investing in EM bonds through the GFC and for a while beyond, and then I got out, following some good advice from someone in here.
Politically, China is uninvestable these days. Authoritarian. Curtailed civil and human rights. They're putting the screws to "special territories" Hong Kong and Macau, too. After having visited there in early 2019, it makes me so sad and angry to see it happening. The Markets have no conscience. But this whole business in China is morally distressing. I'm sworn off of foreign investments in my mutual funds; funds are still the lion's share of what I own. My fund managers have me in UK and Europe, just a tiny bit. I own a Canadian stock with a great dividend; is that "foreign?" Also, a Luxembourg-based maker of oil drilling pipes. Two still very tiny single-stock holdings. In retirement, I like YIELD. My (junk) bond funds provide most of that. Keeping a close eye on them--- a "short leash." Currently, my portfolio provides a 4.05% yield, as calculated by the ever-reliable (LOL) Morningstar.

...the dividend would have presumably added to the Total Return

Two identical investments will net out equal total returns over a full year cycle, no matter when the distributions are made. That is tautology. There is no point to your comparison, unless factoring in market timing or tax liability considerations.
Dividends are a component of total return, as are share price appreciation and distributed capital gains. That is a fact, not a "presumption" (see https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/totalreturn.asp).
Given most any two similar (though non-identical) "Core" portfolio allocations, one with a slight tilt favoring dividend contributions and the other giving neutral weight to dividend payers, I hold that, ALL ELSE BEING MORE OR LESS EQUAL, the fund that consistently pays out higher dividends will usually outperform over the long term. This is the only theory I am trying to put forward here. I believe that ten-year charts for PRWCX provide some support to this thesis, and that David Giroux' stock picking skills will continue to surpass those of his competition.
If any of the points I make here have confused you I apologize, but I must confess your arguments don't make a lot of sense to me, either.

PRCWX traditionally lags its peers further and further as the year goes on, then distributes a massive dividend and CG payout in December, putting it squarely back in the pre-tax Total Return lead.
This statement says that the dividend adds to total return - the "massive dividend" helps a fund that is lagging to catch up (and surpass) in Total Return. In 2023 the price of PRWCX declined on Dec 19th (ex-div date) commensurate with the size of its dividend, thus netting zero increase in Total Return. That is, not putting it squarely back in the Total Return lead.
The equalization of NAV to distribution only holds effect on the ex dividend date and NAV should revert to mean reasonably quickly.
This statement acknowledges this effect but says that it was temporary. Over time (two months was mentioned) the fund would recover this loss. At that point the dividend would have presumably added to the Total Return, putting the fund squarely back in the lead.
It's the underlined section that is problematic.
-------
Consider two funds that pay out over a year roughly equal dividends (percentage wise). One pays quarterly, one annually. As I understand the statements above, the one paying quarterly will pull ahead in total return during the year - it will pay out its quarterly dividend, see its price drop but recover sometime within that quarter. So its total return will for those first three quarters gradually exceed that of the other fund.
But come December, the second fund will make a larger distribution (full year's worth rather than a quarter) and that will let it catch up (perhaps surpass) in total return. That catch up will be complete in a couple of months once the price has "reverted to the mean". At least that seems to be the claim.
For simplicity and clarity, let's consider two purely hypothetical funds, each holding the same one stock. Fund A distributes quarterly, Fund B annually. Suppose the underlying stock pays a div on March 31 (record date much earlier, but irrelevant), and Fund A distributes divs on the same day.
To compute total return, one assumes all fund divs are reinvested. With that assumption, the pre- and post-distribution portfolios of Fund A are the same, and are also the same as the Fund B portfolio (which made no quarterly distribution). Going forward, both funds will have the same total return because they have identical portfolios.
Fund B does not lag just because it doesn't make quarterly distributions. It does not catch up with a "massive dividend" at year end. A dividend payment has no effect on total return.
------
Where I think the confusion arises is in how investors perceive stock divs. Many investors feel that higher div stocks have better returns. But consider stocks like BRK, or see:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082015/3-biggest-misconceptions-dividend-stocks.asp
Even if one buys into this theory, funds don't work that way. In part because fund distributions include capital gains which are not part of this stock div theory. In part because there are so many moving parts in funds that one can't tell from the yield what's going on. A fund could be invested in a mix of money losing companies (with no divs) and companies with high div payout ratios (distributing cash since they are stagnant), or strong companies with respectable payout ratios. The fund yields could be similar either way.