Same here- going to move another 10% of Schwab SUTXX MMKT into 2 or 3 yr Treasuries- looking to get income spread to 50% MMKT / 50% fixed, out to 2028.

Placed an order for 2-yr t-notes in both IRAs. Considered 5 & 7-yr, but will wait till June since rates have slowly been rising, and will try not to kick myself if/when the rates drop.

Enclosed please find the breakdown of FRDM (Fidelity): 25% Taiwan (9% Taiwan semiconductor manufacturing), 19% Chile, 18% South Korea, and 14% Poland.
https://digital.fidelity.com/prgw/digital/research/quote/dashboard/composition?symbol=FRDM
P.S. Warren Buffet sold his entire TSM stake in late 2023 even though he held that in less than several months.

@shipwreckedandalone, the article had several good points.
Quote: "By highlighting the “full market cycle” as the right period for judgment, they’re reminding investors that over shorter spans within the cycle they’ll look,"
FD: is now the start of the market cycle? Is it a good choice to start in the middle?
Full market cycle also means you must stay in the fund for many years to get the benefit of this fund....and now we get to the second problem
Quote: "Since most investors have limited patience, most absolute value investors have limited careers."
FD: can you stay long term in this fund? probably not, Cinnamond never managed the same fund for 15-20 years. His record shows 5 and 6 years, he is already in his fifth year at PVCMX. Since the fund has so much cash, it's obvious Cinnamond can't find valuable stocks, he may quit soon. In 2016 he said "Mr. Cinnamond recommended return of capital to his investors, noting that the market was fundamentally hostile to his investment style and that he was unwilling to charge investors “equity fund prices” while sitting at 90% cash."
==========
Do I think this fund can serve a goal?
Absolutely, if you are a retiree who has enough and just needs 6-7% with lower SD, go for it. This is where I am, but I use bond funds for that and do my own timing going to cash. On the other hand, a fund like RSIIX may generate 6-7% with lower SD but you can own it for years. MM have been paying over 5% for months now.
How strong are you going to be in years when the fund is lagging badly...2021 PVCMX made 3.2% per M* same category made over 31%.
Another idea...use it instead of VWIAX. The problem again is the fact I can own VWIAX for the next 30 years.
Another idea...it can be a good choice for someone EXPLORE portion.
Trade it? not a bad idea, but if you are a good trader you can do better or you know when to use it.
Lastly, another problem is when many investors like to mention funds that have done well in the last several years and start using them when markets start to take off or avoid stocks for years.

@JD_co
Just checked Yahoo for two funds I own
Lists the minimum for PVCMX as $500,000 which is incorrect at least at Schwab and Vanguard
and $1,000,000 for RKCIX ( (wrong) and only our brokerages Schwab no among them
It als claims you can buy GCCELX ( GMO Climate Change fund) at Fidelity which is incorrect
I used the M* data frequently but found it was incorrect about 25% of the time
With an app it is pretty easy to search for a fund at the brokerage website

@Observant1, no response (yet) to my email about 4 hours ago to PV/SRL Global support.
After you posted about access, I checked it too and it works.

OK, the reply just came:
From: Analytics Support
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 10:37 AM
To: xxx; Analytics Support
Subject: Re: Portfolio Visualizer - HTTP 500 Error
This issue should be fixed. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Thanks,
PV Support Team

I thought this article was worth adding to the discussion. I hope the new CEO crushes it!
an-open-letter-to-vanguard-ceo-salim

@yogibearbull,
Thanks for sending an email about the 500 Application Error.
As you mentioned, this is a very generic error which doesn't provide much information.
I'm curious if you received a response regarding the cause of the issue.
Here's one way to run a basic diagnostic test for an HTTPS connection from a Windows computer.
If the TcpTestSucceeded value is True, the destination computer is listening on port 443.
1) Open Windows PowerShell.
2) Input Test-NetConnection -ComputerName www.portfoliovisualizer.com -Port 443
ComputerName : www.portfoliovisualizer.com
RemoteAddress : 52.36.151.217
RemotePort : 443
InterfaceAlias : Ethernet
SourceAddress : 192.168.63.10
TcpTestSucceeded : True
Note: Although a computer may be listening on port 443, other issues may impede proper website functionality.
This is a good "quick and dirty" test.

IF you want a fund NTF at a brokerage, you're likely going to buy a share class with a higher ER. This is to help the fund pay the higher shelf space fee for being offered NTF.
It doesn't really matter how the fund assesses the higher ER; what matters is only that it is a higher ER than the TF share class. Many funds get to a higher ER by charging a 12b-1 fee, but not all do. Some may charge a "service fee" without having a 12b-1 plan, so this fee is not shown as a 12b-1 fee. Rather it is buried in the "other fees".
Or the fund may simply charge a higher management fee for the NTF share class and then the management company "pays" for the shelf space (out of its higher management fee). You can see this with TWCUX (0.95% management fee) and TWUIX (0.71% management fee). TWUIX is available w/TF and a $500 min at Vanguard.
At many brokerages, TRP investor shares are available NTF without extracting a higher fee to pay for the NTF shelf space. The advisor shares (that add a 0.25% 12b-1 fee) were designed in part for brokerages that charged even more for NTF shelf space.
Years ago I invested in a TRP fund, advisor share class, at Citicorp Investment Services. Citibank required a $5K min (combined bank/brokerage) for free checking. i was willing to eat $12.50/year (0.25% x $5K) for the "free" banking services. I later transferred the shares to TRP in-kind and exchanged the shares for cheaper investor shares.

@Observant1, I see 500 Error too at 5:30am Central 5/27/24 - on Chrome, Edge, Firefox. These 500 0r 50# errors are for some server issues. I did use PV yesterday afternoon.
But technically, the PV site is UP, https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/portfoliovisualizer.com.html
Edit/Add - I sent an email to [email protected]
HTTP Errors https://www.cloudns.net/blog/http-status-codes-error-500-error-502/
"500 error. the most generic error possible. It doesn’t tell you anything more than the error is in the server.
501 Not Implemented. The server does not support or has not implemented the functionality required to fulfill the request.
502 error. bad gateway. The server was doing a job as a proxy or a gateway and got an invalid response from another upstream server.
503 Service unavailable. This you can see when the server gets too many task and overload or is down due to maintenance.
504 Gateway Timeout. The server, who was performing as a proxy or a gateway, didn’t receive a response in time from the upstream server. There could be a problem with the next server on the network.
505 HTTP Version Not Supported. The server does not support the HTTP protocol version used in the request."

I used Portfolio Visualizer (PV) earlier this evening to perform some backtests.
I then focused on other tasks before returning to Portfolio Visualizer.
A 500 Application Error was generated when accessing https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com.
Oops!
500 Application Error
The application has encountered an unexpected error. Please reload the main page.
The error has been logged and the system administrator has been notified.
This was first noticed at 8:45 PM PT and the issue still exists at 11:30 PM PT.
It's possible system maintenance is in progress but it's customary
to post announcements during maintenance windows.
I don't recall experiencing any 500 Application Errors prior to the recent PV upgrade.

PACLX adds a 12b-1 fee of 0.25%.

Thanks. Dumb idea, according to yours truly.

PACLX adds a 12b-1 fee of 0.25%.

@yogibearbull,
Thanks but I do not see the platforms / brokerages where different classes are available to purchase. That was the useful information previously. While tickers for various classes is appreciated, we could get those also from the fund site. But I do not know how to easily find the brokerages where I can buy any of those classes, except to go to each of the brokerage websites and type in the tickers, and each brokerage has their own way of indicating whether the fund is available there or not. E.g., many times posters here post that a fund is available at Schwab only to find out later that it is available only through their advisory platform.
Not sure why Schwab is pushing more and more funds into their advisory platform. If I have to buy a retail class at Fidelity or buy an institutional class (even at low minimum) at Schwab advisory platform, the additional 0.25% ER for retail class (vs. advisory fees) seems worth it - I do not have to consult with another human being and pay less in the process.
There are days I feel like opening an account at Firsttrade, where there seems to be less friction to buy and a lot more funds are available than at the brokerages we do business with.

@FD1000 - The reference to UTG is that it is a utilities fund and the manager of PRWCX had recently mentioned that he was favorably inclined to utilities and adding to them in his portfolio. It was in no way, shape or form a comparison of the two funds. But I'm guessing that an astute investor such as yourself knew that and was trying to use the statement to somehow justify your post. Get it together.

I get it but
1) As I said already the site shows utilities at 5.5% as of As of 4/30/2024(not long ago). When it gets to 15-20% let's talk, after all, if utilities are such a great bargain, Giroux as one of the best, would load up.
2) UTG is leveraged, do you think PRWCX uses leveraged?
3) Is your intention to follow PRWCX and do your own categories and timing?

"30% in Tech"...according to PRWCX site (link), it's only about 15%
"+3.63% YTD would translate into something close to a 10-11% annual return if it continues" 3.63 / 5 months * 12 months = 8.7%
"Don't look now but a utilities fund I follow (UTG) is up 6.5% over the last 3 weeks."
What is the correlation between UTG to PRWCX. UTG is a leveraged utility CEF fund, while PRWCX is a flexible allocation fund with 5.5% in utilities per the site above.
BTW, YTD UTG made 7%, Google made 25%, PRWCX has more tech than utilities.

I like PVCMX. Lets look at the entire picture since 5/1/2019: M* 5 star fund.
PVCMX CAGR 7.44% VIOO 7.86%
PVMCX MDraw -6.45% VIOO -42.37%
PVCMX SD 5.85% VIOO 26.92%
PVCMX Sharpe .86 VIOO .20
PVCMX Ulcer 1.28 VIOO 13.87
PVCMX achieved comparable upside with substantially less volatility and downside.
IJS metrics is similar to VIOO with less CAGR than PVCMX.
Read David's MFO review:
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2019/07/launch-alert-palm-valley-capital-fund-pvcmx/
Also see 9/2020 MFO update.
I am amazed adults cannot understand there is a different tool for different objectives.
Every person has a right to their own objective with their own tool with their own money.
There is no right or wrong.

To revert to the title fund of this thread, below is the fund's performance, taken from its quarterly reports, which are available its website
https://www.palmvalleycapital.com/fundcommentary
and are separate from Cinnamond's occasional other comments
https://www.palmvalleycapital.com/commentary.
The fund commentaries report overall return, its cash percentage, the performance of its equities and the performance of the two small cap benchmarks it uses. In the five years since inception it has underperformed its benchmarks by less than its expense ratio, while providing a smoother ride. One might consider 20% of the fund as part of one's small cap apportionment and 80% as part of one's (attached, so not liquid) cash apportionment.

PVCMX's  PVCMX's  PVCMX's  S&P SmCap   M* SmCap
Overall  Percent  Equity   600 Index   Tot Retn
Quarter   Return   Cash     Return   Return      Index
-------   -------  -------  -------  ---------   --------
2019 Q2    0.70%   91.8%    Absent     -1.93%      -1.35%
2019 Q3    0.50    92.9     > BMks     -0.20       -1.81
2019 Q4    0.22    92.4     Absent      8.20        8.67
2020 Q1    0.79    52.0     Absent    -32.65      -31.61
2020 Q2   10.74    72.5     27.3%      21.94       25.47
2020 Q3    0.89    70       ~=BMks      3.17        4.90
2020 Q4    5.78    Absent   22.14%     31.27       29.29
2021 Q1    3.60    80       19.10      18.23       11.62
2021 Q2    1.16    81.4      6.94       4.50        4.23
2021 Q3   -1.06    79.8     -3.40      -2.85       -3.67
2021 Q4    0.04    79        1.34       5.59        3.72
2022 Q1    1.94    80       10.85      -5.64       -6.18
2022 Q2   -0.74    75.8     -3.22     -14.13      -16.44
2022 Q3   -1.83    76.6     -8.66      -5.20       -3.75
2022 Q4    3.86    78.9     15.36       9.19        8.05
2023 Q1    3.01    79       12.2        2.57        4.90
2023 Q2    1.62    82        4.78       3.38        5.60
2023 Q3    0.56    81       -0.78      -4.93       -4.56
2023 Q4    4.00    77.7     14.25      15.12       14.07
2024 Q1    1.04    81.9      2.11       2.46        5.69
Since
Inception  7.55                         8.47        8.31
(04/30/19)

ICI Fact Book, 2024
The new 2024 ICI Factbook is now available. Both the full PDF (long) & separate chapter PDFs are available; downloadable Excel files for each chapter are also available.
#ICI #MutualFunds #OEFs #ETFs #CEFs #TDFs #529s #401k #403b #IRAs
Quick Facts Guide https://www.icifactbook.org/pdf/2024-factbook-quick-facts-guide.pdf
Fact Book Website www.icifactbook.org/
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1490/thread

Observant

The quote above was included in a post you made approximately 2 hours ago on another board.
This highlights just how repetitive your posts can be!
A respondent replied: "Pretty easy to call that. When you are down 10% and pop 2%.
It will work until it doesn't. You are only guessing."
It appears the respondent didn't find this information to be very insightful or beneficial.
That's my view as well.
https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/50337

Observant,
You are funny, you posted that I look in the rearview mirror. I proved you wrong. If you want more proof I can post more.
It seems that you think that the quote "you are down 10% and pop 2%" is a good response. If it is, how can you explain the fact that the SP500 is less than 0.5% from the all-time high?
Yes, it is repetitive, and I have said it in several sites many times since 2010.
BTW, 2 observations:
1) I never mentioned or attacked you in any way. You are the one who started it.
2) Why are you using different names on different sites?