See the CG link below:
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/64622/2025-estimated-capital-gains-estimates-with-links

Surely you understand that figure
Reference points are most effective when people have incorporated an intuitive sense of them. Manhattan is barely two miles from side to side, while San Francisco is seven miles wide. (I've walked both.) This disparity in linear sizes (and difference in shapes) may distort people's sense of area. As does the fact that Manhattan, while often perceived as most of NYC (outside of JFK) covers but 8% of NYC's land area.
How good is your sense of the size of an acre? My parents had a friend who headed a nature/education center. On an open field he laid out markers for the four corners of an acre. Until I visited there I did not have a good sense of the area covered by an acre.
In a similar vein, consumption without normalizing for land area (let alone population) is misleading. Japan consumes "only" 4.87% as much coal as China. But its land area is just 3.93% that of China's. So it is consuming nearly 1¼ as much coal as China given its size.
Sources:
world coal consumption https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-country/
(unknown year); see also here
country land areas: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-by-share-of-earths-surface/
Perhaps a more important problem with the China pollution claim is that it conflates consumption with air pollution. SO₂ (wet) scrubbers can reduce emissions by 90%. (Coal fired power plants "are major contributors of air pollution, especially the primary gas-phase pollutant sulfur dioxide (SO2). SO2 is a precursor to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) sulfate...") One can likewise reduce NOx emissions with catalytic (SCR) scrubbers. So consumption doesn't necessarily correlate that closely with pollution.
OTOH, there's Berkshire Hathaway:

Berkshire plants produce the most coal-fired electricity in the industry without the use of selective catalytic reduction systems, or SCR scrubbers, a technology that can reduce a coal plant’s NOx emissions by more than 80%. Available since the 1990s and more broadly adopted by Berkshire competitors, SCR scrubbers as of 2023 were employed at plants that generate 62% of the coal power in the U.S., EPA data show. At Berkshire, only 27% of its coal power was generated at coal-plant boilers with SCR scrubbers.

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-operates-dirtiest-set-coal-fired-power-plants-us-2025-01-14/
A documentary (Counted ≠ Out) about how people need to and can understand numbers better tosses out this joke: If you insert a single statistic into an assertion people are 92% more likely to accept it without question.
Again, pollution in all forms is IMHO a critical problem. I'm questioning the numbers and contexts posted, not that conclusion. I'm questioning the conflating of consumption and production. I'm asking about technologies deployed and even how much it matters who creates that technology so long as it is utilized. I'm questioning investing in companies like BRK, that does whatever it can to avoid literally cleaning up its act.

BDC and REITs may have similarities for investors
Isn't the point of publishing ERs in a prospectus to inform investors?
but they have different business structure, so they have different treatments by SEC.

They usually do not fall under the Investment Company Act of 1940 because of what they hold, not because of their structure. (If they hold enough securities, they will be subject to the Act.)
https://www.troutman.com/insights/reits-investment-structures-and-investment-company-status/
In any case, this says how REIT fees come to be excluded from AFFEs (acquired fund fee expenses). But it doesn't justify their exclusion. If there's a rationale for REIT fees to be excluded, the same rationale would seem to apply to BDCs. Conversely, if Zweig or others believe that BDC expenses should be included, that same belief would seem to apply to REITs.
==============================
Warning - the remainder is legal gobbledegook of interest primarily to geeks.
BDCs are RICs (registered investment companies) under 1940 ICA (Invest company Act).

As a technical matter, BDCs are not registered investment companies. However, they elect to be subject to many of the regulations applicable to registered investment companies.

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/publicly-traded-business-development-companies-bdcs-investor-bulletin
This election applies to tax regulations, not expense reporting regulations:

Most BDCs elect to be treated as a regulated investment company (RIC), which provides for pass-through tax treatment of net income. BDC dividend payments to shareholders are not subject to entity-level tax on distributed income. In this manner, a BDC operates like a real estate investment trust (REIT) or master limited partnership (MLP) that offers access to the ownership of real estate assets and energy assets, respectively, and passes through investment income.

https://www.blueowlcapitalcorporation.com/about-blue-owl-capital-corp/what-is-a-bdc
See also: 12 USC § 1820a(d)(6) (registered investment company), Westlaw Glossary (RIC - regulated investment company), 26 USC § 851(a) (tax code definition of regulated investment company, BDC special clause).
SEC Final Rule 33-8713 (2006) p. 40 is what creates the AFFE requirement. It applies to all investment companies, not just ones registered under the '40 Act.

“Acquired Fund” means any company in which the Fund invests or has invested during the relevant fiscal period that ... is an investment company ...

Form N-1A instruction 3(f)(i)
So what's an investment company?

“investment company” means any issuer which—
(A)is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities;
(B)is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of issuing face-amount certificates of the installment type, or has been engaged in such business and has any such certificate outstanding; or
(C)is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities, and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40 per centum of the value of such issuer’s total assets (exclusive of Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis.

15 U.S. Code § 80a-3(a)(1)
BDCs fit this definition even though they're not registered investment companies. But then, so can SPACs (pre-acquisition). Yet their costs aren't counted in AFFEs.

The principal regulation for investment funds in the United States is the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“ICA”). It applies to any company that is “engaged primarily” in the business of investing in securities. Because SPACs invest 100% of their assets in securities prior to their acquisitions, many of them qualify as investment companies under this definition.

Robert Jackson and Joh Morely, SPACs as Investment Funds, Wharton (July 14, 2022)
SEC position on SPACs as subject to '40 Act ("it depends")
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/03/05/final-rules-on-spac-ipos-and-de-spacs/
REITs, BDCs, SPACs. From an investor perspective, what's the difference? And fundamentally, should any indirect costs be explicitly reported, especially if they aren't included (except implicitly) in financial reports?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908186/000090818625000099/accpscv497-10102025.htm
497 1 accpscv497-10102025.htm 497
American Century Capital Portfolios, Inc.
Summary Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement
Small Cap Value Fund
newaci_logoblkg97a.jpg
Supplement dated October 10, 2025 n Summary Prospectus and Prospectus dated August 1, 2025
As of December 9, 2025, the fund will be open to all investors.
The following changes are effective on December 9, 2025:
The first paragraph under Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares on page 5 of the summary prospectus and the prospectus is deleted.
The section entitled Closed Fund Policies on page 18 of the prospectus is deleted.

@bee
I looked at material Check Capital sent about their returns since 2000 through 3/31/2025.
They give cumulative and annualized returns for both of their fee programs, the fee based at 1% per year or the 10% of profits only
Cumulative 10% has done a little better 590% vs 554% or 7.95% per year vs 7.72%

No one knows the answer.
There is a Wall Street saying, "The market can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent,"
The market, as a collective force, can sustain trends or pricing bubbles that defy logic for extended periods.
Don't fight the market:
Markets have dropped sharply several times over the past 2-3 decades and not based on valuations:
2008: Down over 50% due to the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) crisis.
2018: A correction caused by Fed rate hikes.
2020: The COVID-19 crash.
2022: Another downturn triggered by rising interest rates — arguably the easiest one to predict.
2025: The current uncertainty stems from potential tariff issues.
Market movements today happen far faster than they did one or two decades ago — which means you have to be a smarter, more disciplined trader.
Hint: Don’t base your trades on 24/7 media coverage or popular opinions. Develop your own strategy and criteria.
And if active trading isn’t your strength, that’s fine — just hold your investments and build your portfolio around your goals and risk tolerance.

M* Fund Category Definitions, 10/2025
https://pdfhost.io/v/yjDfKREXgy_MStar_Fund_Categories_102025
Changes, Oct. 31, 2025 - more private-equity/credit & securitized categories
Added Private Equity, Venture Capital, Private Debt - General, Private Debt - Direct Lending, Private MultiAsset, Direct Real Estate, Direct Infrastructure, Government Mortgage-Backed Bond, Securitized Bond - Focused, Securitized Bond - Diversified, Multi-Asset Leveraged, and Equity Digital Assets.

@Mark I also sold a large longtime VZ position today to lock in some offsetting capital losses heading into EOY.

They've been around since the 80's but it largely appears that they put you in individual stocks. They hold 2.2 billion and have 1200 clients(per other sources had 200 million in 2002) thats an avg of 1.8 mil per. for them to legally charge this way requires at least 1.1 mil under management OR 2.2 in assets.
thats all from their website. They are rated as a top planner from CNBC.
here is info on their holdings :
https://hedgefollow.com/funds/Check+Capital+Management+Inc+Ca

Check Capital is interesting. Anyone know what their track record is and what they invest in? Also they have listed qualification criteria but not what minimum account size they want.

Many people vowed they would not invest in Janus funds after its participation in the early 2000s market timing scandal. But there were a lot of changes made at the top of Janus. Heartland was and is at the other end of the spectrum. So I haven't taken a good look at the Heartland funds in decades.

One Web site, FundAlarm.com, has been running what it calls a Whiston Watch, or a tally of how long Mr. Whiston has declined to explain "his role in the Janus market timing scandal, including what he knew and when he knew it." Mr. Whiston's departure means "another ghost of the past is gone," said Robert A. Olstein, whose Olstein Financial Alert fund has been buying Janus stock. "It shows me they are moving in the right direction."

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2004/04/21/chief-executive-janus-capital-steps/28801376007/
As I recall, only HRTVX impressed. And there are enough other fish in that sea.

Re: Josh Brown
I started listening to Animal Spirits with his colleagues in 2018. I started listening to the Compound when it began in 2020. I feel like they are one of the best financial podcast groups out there. its always interesting. they interview everyone, stay very topical to whats going on and seem to have a solid grasp of most of these concepts.
They are a growing wealth management firm. I believe they opened an office in Chicago last year and are opening one in Charlotte next year. So of course growing AUM is important. what I appreciate about this group is they are largely "active strategy while being more index forward" advisors, which helps a person not pay double "AUM" if you will (compounding 1% ER with 1% AUM can be quite a portfolio drag).
the Ritholtz team are great interviewers IMO. it is funny that they will often be like "I'm going to talk for an hour about why you should invest in target date funds...that hour is brought to you by INNOVATOR BUFFER 3X TSLA ETFS"

In this environment, I like my PRPFX. But adding to it here is tough. PM and equities are in bubble territory.
The markets can allow these bubbles to expand for a lengthy time as "fundamentals are so passe".
Its a dangerous game at this point. Will you find a chair when the music stops?

Ah Global Crossing. Lost $5000 on that one. What about MCI.
I sold CSCO in my IRA at a profit of something like $40,000 but my wife pulled a Warren Buffet ( holding period forever etc) and in her taxable account we rode CSCO down.
We kept ORCL.
Now what? Anybody else in the same boat? We have a capital gain of $250 a share

@bee
The only investment firm I have ever seen with an incentive arrangement is Check Capital
https://checkcapital.com/performance-based-fee
It is for Qualified investors only $1.1 million in their account or $2.2 million net worth.
they get 10% of profits, nothing if your account does not increase in value
Maybe someone with better programing skills can tell us which decade that would have worked out as a good deal. Surely in a ten year flat market it would be a better deal but not lately

I try to remind myself of these fees each time I am offered a "free" steak dinner from these wealth management companies.
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).
For example, If I give you $10K to invest and that investment becomes $11K in a year, I am willing to pay you 1% on the gain (1% of $1K or $10), not 1% on the entire $11K.
You helped me make $1K... I brought you $10K.
Conversely, If you lost money for me that year, you get $0 fee.
Or even better, how about you pay me 1% of AUM in the years when my portfolio had negative returns. We are a team, right? If "we do better when you do better" is true, than how about "we both do worse when you suffer a loss (do worse)".
In terms of retirement Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) of say 4%, a typical 1% management fee equates to 25% of that SWR (1% of the 4%). That a significant reduction in retirement income.
I'll take that steak dinner to go please!

Yeah, well said!
Maybe I am just a cheapskate, but I am not paying for anything that I can do myself, that doesn't involve a septic tank.
A free steak is not worth hours of my time and enduring a sales pitch.

bee said:
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).

Are you referring to the asset management fee in wealth management that brokerages offer ?

Exactly...We should share in the gains we made together, not the assets I brought you. In real estate its called ROI (Return on Investment).

That reminds me of a futures trading system firm years ago that approached me through my broker about helping seeding their new strategy and then potentially recommending it The offered a typical 2-and-20 which I laughed and said if I was fronting the money, I shouldn't be paying you ANYTHING beyond transaction costs. We haggled and I got them down to .50-and-zero but by that time I was feeling like a potential chump and decided not to play in the end. Probably made the right move, since I never saw them again anywhere. :)

bee said:
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).

Are you referring to the asset management fee in wealth management that brokerages offer ?

Exactly...We should share in the gains we made together, not the assets I brought you. In real estate its called ROI (Return on Investment).

bee said:
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).

Are you referring to the asset management fee in wealth management that brokerages offer ?

Since the start of 2024 there have been many penny-stock IPOs — often defined as IPOs priced below $5.
Through Sept. 30 of this year, there were 164 of them on U.S. exchanges including 147 on Nasdaq.
According to Jay Ritter, a University of Florida finance professor emeritus,
106 penny-stock IPOs were brought to market from 2001 to 2023.
"Last month’s initial public offerings included a Cayman Islands-incorporated provider
of shrimp-farm maintenance services in Malaysia with only four employees.
The IPO by Megan Holdings priced at $4 a share and raised $5 million."
"There has been a flood of similar microcap IPOs over the past two years,
a sign of the speculative fever gripping many parts of the investing world.
These stocks often lure in everyday investors before they tumble.
Some have produced eye-popping gains following announcements
related to a name change, cryptocurrencies or artificial intelligence."
"Nasdaq has promised to clean up its act and on Sept. 3 asked the Securities and Exchange Commission
for permission to tighten its listing standards, especially for small Chinese stocks.
This followed criticism by investors and lawmakers that such listings have become breeding grounds
for scams and manipulation."
https://marketsam.cmail20.com/t/d-e-gejykl-duklntldl-r/