Vanguards balanced fund which is closed to new investors

Vanguard closed the Investor share class of its index funds to most retail investors because it lowered the min of the Admiral class shares for these funds to $3K.
Check out VBIAX. It's open at Fidelity (with a TF, as always there), and you can even get in for less - just $2500.

Conservative 30-50% balanced fund HBLAX, similar to VWINX, but avaiable NTF outside Vanguard.

@slick,
Why did you choose it over say JABAX?
(I am now aiming at DSEEX and PONAX 50/50 but always interested elsewhere.)

For a retirement account and if you are looking for around a 50/50 allocation, one part of Wellington to one part of Wellesley is nice.

Whether @hank intended it this way or not, I'll take his post to convey the message that while Shakespeare penned a marvelous piece of rhetoric in which praise for Caesar was "buried" in language that ostensibly condemned him, the cited article is neither brilliantly wordsmithed nor does it employ a rhetorical device as implied by its headline.
What it buries are inconvenient facts. Such as index funds costing as much as 0.50% around 1980 (the start of one of the time frames used). And the oft repeated fact that one cannot invest directly in an index.
A more important fact, IMHO, that it ignores is that the rise in the use of index funds (and index ETFs) coincides with their use in wrap accounts. Those accounts charge the same 1% that the article is criticizing.

Some of the finest lines in the English language:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar.
The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
Full text: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56968/speech-friends-romans-countrymen-lend-me-your-ears

Perhaps, this money movement is driven in good part due to electronic trading systems with their repositioning of "hot" money. It will be interesting to see if fourth quarter corporate earnings and forward revenue projections can continue to support (and perhaps lift) current stock prices. It will also be interesting to see where the "hot" money flows during this week and if the electronic trading systems continue to buy stocks or if they begin to sell "booking some profit" thus driving stock prices lower.
By the way ... Old_Skeet's stock market barometer that follows the S&P 500 Index based upon its metrics scores the Index as being in fair value on the barometer's scale as of Friday's market close of 1/18/2019. With this, I'm thinking earnings are going to have to surprise to the upside with strong forward revenue projections for the Index to continue to move higher and move through the technical resistance levels. Otherwise, stock market volatility will be back in vogue.
Have a great day ... and, I wish all "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

RPSIX is not a bond fund - as I understand the term commonly to mean. Never has been. The Prospectus (at last check) allows the fund to commit anywhere from 5-25% of its assets to Price’s Equity and Income fund (PRFDX). If you don’t already know, the latter is a stock fund. Normally that commitment is in the 10-15% range. Additionally, RPSIX invests in HY, EM and international bond funds. Technically, those constitute various classes of bonds - but to lump that type of broadly (and aggressively) diversified bond portfolio under the heading “bond fund” is taking an awful lot of liberty with the term IMHO.
So what is RPSIX? It is a diversified income fund. Always has been. Probably always will be. I get questions re whether it’s a good investment. Hard to answer. Instead of looking at its (somewhat lackluster) chart, I prefer to look at the actual holdings and percentages committed to various underlying funds. If I like most of the holdings and can see how they strengthen my overall portfolio in some way, than I don’t give a hoot how the fund performed in the recent past.
Hope the author of this dubious article has been more accurate in attaching that “bond fund” label to the other funds he’s discussing. To read his headline / opening one would think the fund companies were trying to pull the wool over investors’ eyes. In the case of T. Rowe Price, anyway, that’s not the case.
Qualifier: When I looked at T. Rowe’s “Historical Performance” link, RPSIX did in fact surface under the category “Bond Funds.” I think it would be better placed under “Allocation Funds”. If the author only looked at the category list and didn’t bother to read the fund’s “Prospectus” - than I can see why he believed it to be a bond fund.
Here’s the link to that list: https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/mutual-funds/historical-performance.html

@hank: my great uncle (d. 1950's) owned a still-running GE refrigerator that was so old it earned him recognition from the company. I recall it sitting on legs an having a round refrigeration coil on top. It kept on running despite his demise.

Ah, the good old days before appliances were smart enough to retire themselves early.

FYI: Lipper’s fund asset groups (including both mutual funds and ETFs) experienced net outflows of $14.2 billion for the fund-flows trading week ended Wednesday, January 16. Money market funds (-$15.0 billion) were responsible for the majority of the net negative flows as investors put money back to work. Equity funds (-$4.4 billion) also contributed to the overall net outflows, while taxable bond funds and municipal debt funds had net inflows of $4.3 billion and $946 million, respectively.
Regards,
Ted

FYI: Some bond fund investors received an unpleasant surprise in the fourth quarter of 2018, when stock market losses stung their bond portfolios.
For the most part, meaningful equity stakes in bond funds are rare. Most bond fund managers stick to bonds, or hold only tiny positions in common stock that might come from a bankruptcy restructuring, or from the conversion to equity of a convertible bond. Of the 280-plus taxable-bond funds that we rate, about one in 10 held more than a couple of percentage points in stocks as of its most recent portfolio, and only a handful held more than a five-percentage-point stake.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/908355/are-there-stocks-in-your-bond-portfolio.html

@hank: my great uncle (d. 1950's) owned a still-running GE refrigerator that was so old it earned him recognition from the company. I recall it sitting on legs an having a round refrigeration coil on top. It kept on running despite his demise.

@slick, @Derf and @hank: Have no fear Old_Skeet still plans to maintain his 20% allocation to cash within his portfolio even though thus far this year cash has been a drag on my portfolio's performance as stocks rebounded from being extremely oversold during the recent stock market swoon.
As Derf noted many mutual funds still remain down for the rolling one year period including my current year-to-date leaders noted above. However, I have some funds that are up for the rolling one year period. My three fund leaders for the rolling one year period are Alger Small Cap Focus Fund (AOFAX) +18.42% ... Franklin Convertible Securities Fund (FISCX) +7.05% ... and, Fidelity Advisor Real Estate Income Fund (FRINX) +4.20% plus some others as well including my money market mutual funds.
Because of all the uncertainity that presently exist in the markets (and economy) I plan to continue to roll with my 20/40/40 well diversified "all weather" asset allocation as one can never tell where the electronic trading machines (hot money crowd) will next position as I am sure it might surprise.
Wishing all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

FYI: Global stocks started the week under pressure after data showed that China’s economy grew at its slowest pace in nearly three decades last year, the latest sign that the world economy is decelerating.
The Stoxx Europe 600 fell 0.4% in early morning trade, dragged down by banks and utility companies. Asian markets finished mostly higher, though they trimmed gains after the Chinese data release.
U.S. markets are closed Monday for Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Futures for the S&P 500 were down 0.4%.
The world’s second-largest economy grew 6.6% in 2018, the slowest annual pace China has recorded since 1990, official data showed Monday. The economic downturn, which has been sharper than Beijing expected, deepened in the last months of 2018, with fourth-quarter growth rising 6.4% from a year earlier.
The Chinese figures come amid a bruising trade fight with the U.S. and, coupled with lackluster numbers for the American and European economies, paint a picture of a slowing global economy.
Regards,
Ted
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-weaken-as-chinas-growth-slows-11548060008
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-20/asian-stocks-to-advance-as-global-rally-builds-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-netflix-stock-microsoft-stock-salesforce-stock-visa-stock-adobe-stock-market-rally/
Reuters:
CNBC:
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/european-shares-stumble-after-weak-chinese-gdp-data-idUSKCN1PF0P6
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-rise-despite-slower-economic-growth-in-china-2019-01-20/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/us-treasurys-bond-investors-monitor-trade-with-china-and-shutdown.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/21/forex-markets-dollar-china-economic-data-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/21/oil-markets-china-economy-opec-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/21/gold-markets-the-fed-in-focus.html
Current Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Works for me, I can DCA with each weekly shopping run - and with a 5% Prime discount, too! :)

Eventually Amazon would probably also try selling shares at the Whole Foods meat counter.

Thanks @Ted - An informative discussion.
Some take-aways:
- Reminds me a lot of Peter Lynch 30 years ago. Both are / were more concerned about product, and much less so with price performance, technical indicators or indexes.
- Loved his comment: “There are good active managers and there are bad active managers.”
- Repeated reference to autonomous driving. My Accord has “level 1” capability which allows it to self-steer, provided it can discern a clearly marked center line. Biggest problem is it cannot tell smooth portions of a roadway from the pot-holed and broken-up areas. To be able to steer around those (endemic on our local roads) I often have to turn it off. Only mention it because I’m wondering how the designers will work around that issue?
- Nothing surprising about T. Rowe. After 25+ years, I know them to be excellent at sorting out the macro trends.
- On GE, if you’re familiar with Arthur Miller you’ll recall Willy Loman also held them in high esteem. Hearing his Hastings refrigerator had broken again ...
“I told you we should’ve bought a well-advertised machine. Charley bought
a General Electric and it’s twenty years old and it’s still good, that son-of-a-
bitch ... Whoever heard of a Hastings refrigerator?” (Death of a Salesman - Act 2 )
Couple disappointments:
- Little if any discussion of fixed income.
- Mack’s lead-in suggested some bearishness on Giroux’s part. But I didn’t sense that. I’d say he’s very macro oriented and bearish on some big names while being positive on others - depending largely on sector.

Here are some additional clarifications:
1. A syndicate can be a group of borrowers and/or a group of lenders; there is even a loan syndication association which created rules on how to manage a syndication : https://www.lsta.org/

Of course a syndicate can bring together lenders and/or borrowers. I never said otherwise. Though most likely there would be a syndicate of borrowers and a syndicate of lenders, but not a single syndicate comprised of "a group of borrowers and/or a group of lenders."
What I did say is that syndication is an action. So "rules on how to manage a syndication" would be rules on how to manage the process of syndicating a loan.

2. Repo, Reverse Repo and Securities lending are ALL very similar in essence, here are the evidences:

The evidences are somewhat lacking with regard to securities lending.

3. Accounting rules which recognize the similarity - The accounting standard board called FASB recognizes that similarity in their FIN 41 clarification, see Note #2 at the bottom of page number FIN41-2: https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid=1175801626916&acceptedDisclaimer=true
"For purposes of this Interpretation, a REVERSE REPURCHASE AGREEMENT (reverse repo) refers to a transaction that is accounted for as a collateralized lending in which a buyer-lender buys securities with an agreement to resell them to the seller-borrower at a stated price plus interest at a specified date or in specified circumstances. The “receivable” under a reverse repurchase agreement refers to the amount due from the seller-borrower for the repurchase of the securities from the buyer-lender. IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES, THE TERMINOLOGY IN REVERSED; THAT IS, ENTITIES IN THOSE INDUSTRIES REFFER TO THIS TYPE OF AGREEMENT AS REPO".

Sure, in a repurchase agreement one side sells, one side buys. One side calls it a repo and the other side a reverse repo. Maybe these terms get reversed. But one side always "buys securities with an agreement to resell them" to the other side.
Nowhere is there mention of a loan of securities absent a sale, though as the note indicates, the mechanics/accounting look like a collateralized loan. Which is why I previously analogized it to a "mortgage". (Closer mechanically to a deed of trust and promissory note.)

4. Legal wording of the agreement – all those agreements (Repo, Reverse Repo and Securities lending ) are standardized agreements created by SIFMA and are very similar in their essence : https://www.sifma.org/resources/general/mra-gmra-msla-and-msftas/

"Wording" and "essence" are virtually antonyms. One refers for form, the other to substance. "Letter" and "spirit" if you prefer.
The legal wordings of the master repurchase agreement and the master securities loan agreement are structurally very different. So you might want to describe a bit more about the "essence" of these agreements.
Certainly as far as mechanics go, there's little difference between selling something with an agreement to repurchase, and lending something (so long as one grants all rights inherent in ownership). Though the master loan agreement draws a distinction between the treatment of government securities (clearly relevant here) and other securities, while the master repo agreement does not.
Where they part is precisely in essence. The motivation, or essence if you will, of a securities loan is the interest of the borrower in possessing the security temporarily. That is, the borrower in this transaction is the one taking possession of the security (and giving collateral).
The motivation of a repo agreement is found in the seller who wants cash temporarily. That is, the effective borrower in this transaction is the one getting cash by giving up possession of the security (which serves as collateral - see your FIN-41 note 2 above).
Borrower is the one wanting something; borrower pays.
International Capital Markets Association, FAQ #13: What is the difference between repo and securities lending?

If you feel more comfortable with a brand name you should go over there, this discussion is interesting but no one is trying to make anyone invest in this fund.

It's not that I'm more comfortable with brand names; I often seek out boutiques. Rather it is that I'm less comfortable with this specific fund.
To make me comfortable with a fund that is newly formed, that uses a management company that has never managed a fund before and couldn't launch an ETF, that employs a manager who has never managed a fund before, it's going to take more than a one year record built on leverage. Especially when 30% of assets are at risk with a single counterparty with even less history.
Seafarer this ain't. Though to mirror your comment, no one is trying to make anyone divest of this fund.

Old_Skeet's three best year-to-date fund performers through January 18, 2019 are MFS New Discovery Value Fund (NDVAX) +10.22% ... Pimco Commodities Strategy Plus Fund (PCLAX) +9.78% ... and, Principal Small/Mid Cap Dividend Fund (PMDAX) +9.39% which are all found in the growth area of my portfolio. In compairson, an equal weighted S&P 500 Index Fund (VADAX) that I follow (and generally use as an equity spiff fund) is up +8.09% while a cap weighted 500 Index fund (OGEAX) that I also follow is up 6.62%. In addition, my All Weather 20/40/40 master portfolio is up just short of 4% while its bogey the Lipper Balanced Index is up 3.3%. Unless we get into a protracted stock market decline I'm not looking for my master portfolio to continue to outperform the Lipper Balanced Index although I find it interesting that it currently is outperforming it since stocks have been on a recent uptrend so far this year. The portfolio's outperformace is due in part to the strong performace of its hybrid income sleeve which is also the largest sleeve within the portfolio, at about 25%, and it is up 4.4% (ytd). Not surprising, the poorest performing sleeve within my portfolio, not counting my demand cash sleeve, has been my investment cash sleeve which is up 0.1%.

PRDSX +8.73% Small growth, a quant fund.
My other equity funds are bunched, up a bit more than +5%.
PRIDX, VEIRX, PRWCX.
Bonds: PTIAX holding about even. PRSNX +0.87%.

Here are some additional clarifications:
1. A syndicate can be a group of borrowers and/or a group of lenders; there is even a loan syndication association which created rules on how to manage a syndication : https://www.lsta.org/
2. Repo, Reverse Repo and Securities lending are ALL very similar in essence, here are the evidences:
3. Accounting rules which recognize the similarity - The accounting standard board called FASB recognizes that similarity in their FIN 41 clarification, see Note #2 at the bottom of page number FIN41-2: https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid=1175801626916&acceptedDisclaimer=true
"For purposes of this Interpretation, a REVERSE REPURCHASE AGREEMENT (reverse repo) refers to a transaction that is accounted for as a collateralized lending in which a buyer-lender buys securities with an agreement to resell them to the seller-borrower at a stated price plus interest at a specified date or in specified circumstances. The “receivable” under a reverse repurchase agreement refers to the amount due from the seller-borrower for the repurchase of the securities from the buyer-lender. IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES, THE TERMINOLOGY IN REVERSED; THAT IS, ENTITIES IN THOSE INDUSTRIES REFFER TO THIS TYPE OF AGREEMENT AS REPO".
4. Legal wording of the agreement – all those agreements (Repo, Reverse Repo and Securities lending ) are standardized agreements created by SIFMA and are very similar in their essence : https://www.sifma.org/resources/general/mra-gmra-msla-and-msftas/
Those legal agreements and the legal opinions supporting them are the protections that all of the industry uses, including the fund, this is a standardized market in which everyone uses the same legal agreements therefore everyone has the same legal protections no matter the size of the entity.
If you feel more comfortable with a brand name you should go over there, this discussion is interesting but no one is trying to make anyone invest in this fund.