RubyTuesday wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 7:19 am
I didn’t read the earlier thread, but seems like Vanguard could have done in-kind redemptions to minimize the cap gains being pushed to the surviving fund holders. Was there some reason that wasn’t done? I’ll review the complaint and earlier thread to see if I can answer my own question before someone answers me here. Ready, set, go…
Remember, these were the collective actions of 10000s of individual holdings. It's hard to argue that Joe Programmer's $55,000 holding of target date 2050 would be "disruptive" to the fund. It certainly wasn't market timing. They have a duty to provide daily liquidity.
How would they issue stock to people holding the accounts in a 401k that has no provision for that?
Vanguard did not handle this well. But there's a big difference between that and illegal. In retrospect, they should have just merged the funds.
People like to say "sue!!!!!!" It's usually the people who have never dealt with the legal system. Nothing there works like a layperson expects. I learned this the hard way when I learned that "time is of the essence" is a clause that allows either side to walk away from the deal if a timeline wasn't met, even by a small amount.
My SO was involved in a contentious estate issue. The person causing the contention was instructed to show up in court on a specific day and time. The person asked the judge for a delay because it wasn't a convenient time. The judge denied it.
Come the day, after my SO travelled 2 hours to the court room with their lawyer, the other person wasn't there. The judge's response? "I guess they had somewhere else to be."