I did read the quote but did not realize until later what you meant.Uhh, that was the “embarrassingly incorrect prediction” that I mentioned in my post. Do people not read the text they quote?It also seems you had a different view on this subject back in 2020.So, it looked like a business decision by Fidelity to change funds. And it looks like I made an embarrassingly incorrect prediction concerning Vanguard afterwards. Although in Vanguard’s case it was others that created the cap gains, in response to a Vanguard action, versus the direct Fidelity action.
viewtopic.php?p=4939555#p4939555Vanguard obviously cares more about tax efficiency than Fidelity - consider their patented ETF share class for mutual funds. Vanguard would have found a way to reduce or eliminate the tax impact. Fidelity was idiotic in realizing such a large capital gain.
However, if Vanguard were to make a change to a sub-fund in one of the TR or LS funds, I don’t think they would just sell the whole sub-fund at once and incur all those cap gains like Fidelity did. In fact, Vanguard has made such changes gradually over time in other cases. Doesn’t excuse the lack of foresight in the other changes they made.
I wish the case had gone ahead so discovery had occurred and the details of Vanguard's actions were made public. I am very disappointed in Vanguard's actions.
Statistics: Posted by anagram — Tue Dec 26, 2023 12:36 am — Replies 150 — Views 14409