FPURX and JABAX might suit if not too gogo --- at the 50% equity bound at their low end range, which I suppose these days they never reach. Same LG nominal style as Weitz. FBALX too, and its style is nominally LB.

Funds can and often do drift across category boundaries. I would not want to see a fund whipsawed between categories every three months (funds disclose portfolios quarterly) just because it added (or subtracted) 3 or 4 percent in equities, or edged just over the line between value and blend.
That would make comparing funds difficult, let alone even finding a fund using a screener. If funds were classified based solely on their current holdings, a fund could wind up classified as a 2* 70-85% fund one quarter, a 4* 50-70% fund the next, and a 2* 70-85% later the same year.
Instead, M* incorporates some lag, and yes, some human judgment when classifying funds. Enough time to see whether the change is "transitory" (to use the word of the day), or something more permanent.

Chad Lowry: The reason why we use three years of information is, we really – we want our classifications to be stable over time and reflect what the manager is intending to do and what your performance is going to reflect over a long period of time and a timeframe that most people who own a fund would have that in their portfolio. We can tolerate slight drifts outside of the classification on the most recent portfolio if the manager tends to go back within that range, which has been demonstrated over time.
Okay. So to that point, so if there are sort of recent portfolio changes, it is not necessarily going to result in a change to the Morningstar Category?
Paul Justice: Yeah, not necessarily, and that’s where our analysts really step in and want to make an assessment to make sure that is this a temporary phenomenon or is there really a strategic change at the fund. Which is going to indicate that they are going to perform same or like a growth fund than they have been as a value fund in the past.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/754147/morningstar-categories-introduction-update-2016

Several months ago, a poster on another forum made the following observation about FMSDX: "With value equities and junk fixed income be prepared to take a hit with this fund if the equity / credit markets turn south [...]"
That was apparent yesterday when FMSDX lost 0.86%, that is more than the S&P 500 index lost. This may not be the "sleep well at night" type of fund for a conservative retiree in today's market environment. Time for me to reconsider and re-evaluate whether or not to keep this fund in my portfolio.
Currently looking at WBALX, a balanced fund in M*'s 30-50%/conservative-allocation category with a lower standard deviation and somewhat lower equity exposure that lost only 0.17%. Total returns over the past 3 and 5 years have been in the 10 to 11% range, quite satisfactory in my neck of the woods.
Good luck,
Fred

One can always go straight to the horse's mouth:
https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/campaign/summit-program.html
This is essentially the same basic information that T. Rowe Price sent to customers last month via email, though it adds a lot in its FAQs. What follows is what I read into this preliminary announcement; I could easily be misinterpreting.
- This appears to be the replacement for T. Rowe Price's "Select Client Services", including Personal Services ($250K min) and Enhanced Personal Services ($1M min). That program used to also include Preferred Services ($100K) - see, e.g. footnote 2 on p. 4 here - that TRP quietly phased out a few years ago.
TRP writes (regarding Select Client Services): "The Summit Program is T. Rowe Price’s revamped benefits program that will offer special access to products and services from T. Rowe Price." It doesn't say explicitly that Select Client Services is being discontinued, though that would be the most reasonable interpretation. Alternatively, TRP might allow existing Select Client Services to remain in that program, much as they appear to have grandfathered Preferred Services ($100K) customers after phasing out that tier.
- It is reasonable to assume that eligible assets (i.e. what's counted toward the min) will be the same for old and new programs, though nothing explicitly says that.
- If this Summit program is replacing Select Client Services, will it still provide free M* premium membership?
- The Summit program, like Select Client Services, will have multiple levels. But what they are and what the minimums are remain largely unstated. Though $250K is the min for the Summit program, so that must be the lowest tier. And $500K is likely the min for a tier because that level qualifies you to invest in I class shares.
- "Preferred access" to closed funds doesn't say what that preference is nor does this say that you'll have access to all closed funds. TRP might operate like Vanguard and allow Summit customers to buy, say, $25K of a closed fund per year. TBD.
- We may expect a flurry of activity from Shadow as TRP updates its funds' prospectuses :-)

You have probably already seen this from M*, but here is what I ran across for BRUFX:
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=BRUFX&region=usa&culture=en-US
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=BRUFX&region=usa&culture=en-US
This information is as of 6/30/21 (filed 9/7/21) from the SEC (look at page 3 for bar chart):
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/47071/000158064221004260/brucefunds_n-csr.htm
Not sure I am able to locate more up to date holdings than what is already out there.
Here is a SEC filing as of June 30, 2012 (filed 9/7/12. Look for barchart).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/47071/000119312512384027/d402032dncsr.htm

Great explanation of Musk sales
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthew-s-levine?cmpid=BBD111121_MONEYSTUFF&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=211111&utm_campaign=moneystuff&sref=OzMbRRMQ
Copied below if interested if you cannot open paywall
Oh Elon
Well here you go sure sure sure:
Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk unloaded $5 billion of stock in the electric-car maker, shortly after restoking a social media debate over the tax treatment of billionaires’ shareholdings.
The world’s richest person so far has disposed of more than 4.5 million shares this week, according to regulatory filings. Those were his first sales in more than five years.
Musk, who frequently stokes controversy on Twitter, created a firestorm over the weekend with a survey asking whether he should sell part of his Tesla stake. While he portrayed his proposal as having to do with debate over the ultra-wealthy avoiding taxes, the filings released Wednesday show some of the transactions were pre-arranged in mid-September -- weeks before the poll. He also didn’t mention in the tweets that he has millions of stock options that must be exercised before next August, when they expire.
There are two sets of sales. On Monday, he exercised 2.15 million stock options that were granted in 2012, paying about $13.4 million to acquire 2.15 million shares; then he sold 934,091 of those shares for about $1.1 billion. The Form 4 disclosures for the exercise and sales are here and here. Footnote 1 of each of Musk’s Form 4s says: “The transactions reported on this form 4 were automatically effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan previously adopted on September 14, 2021 and established by the reporting person for the purpose of an orderly sale of shares related to the exercises of options scheduled to expire in 2022.” Actually it says that in all caps. I like my readers so I rendered it in sentence case for readability, but now I’m going to say it again in all caps, for accuracy but also for emphasis: “THE TRANSACTIONS REPORTED ON THIS FORM 4 WERE AUTOMATICALLY EFFECTED PURSUANT TO A RULE 10B5-1 TRADING PLAN PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 AND ESTABLISHED BY THE REPORTING PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ORDERLY SALE OF SHARES RELATED TO THE EXERCISES OF OPTIONS SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE IN 2022.”
On Tuesday and Wednesday, he sold a total of about 3.6 million of the 170.5 million shares that he already owned (i.e. not shares subject to options), for proceeds of about $3.9 billion. There are a bunch of Form 4s for these sales (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here).[1] They do not mention a prearranged 10b5-1 plan; presumably he decided to sell them this week, and then did.
Some background. First, in September, a few weeks after he put this Rule 10b5-1 plan in place, he said publicly at a conference that “a huge block of options will sell in Q4 — because I have to or they’ll expire.”[2] He has 22,862,050 options in the tranche set to expire next August; he exercised 2.15 million of them on Monday, leaving him with about 20.7 million options in that “huge block” that he plans to “sell in Q4.”
Second, this past Saturday, Musk tweeted a poll. “Much is made lately of unrealized gains being a means of tax avoidance,” he wrote, “so I propose selling 10% of my Tesla stock. Do you support this?” In a second tweet, he said “I will abide by the results of this poll, whichever way it goes.” The poll closed on Sunday, with 57.9% of the votes in favor of Musk selling 10% of his stock.
It is not clear what “10% of my Tesla stock” means. At the time of the poll, Musk owned about 170.5 million shares of Tesla stock. But he was also, for legal purposes, the “beneficial owner” of another 73.5 million shares underlying options; Tesla’s filings show him owning 244 million shares. So if Musk were to sell 10% of his stock that would mean selling somewhere between 17 million and 24 million shares, give or take.

It seems to me that when we opened the T-IRA rollover in BRUFX, Morningstar had it included among other 50-70 percent stock funds. That was in April, 2020. It now is labeled in the 70-85% equity group. Yes, Morningstar is often wrong and inaccurate. This is still causing just a bit of anxiety on my part.
Anyone else notice this?

Thanks very much for sharing that link @Stillers. So I’m assuming that 250k could include some non T Rowe Price funds too?

Looks like Summit Program to buy closed funds starts at 250k, which is a great deal more reasonable than Vanguard's 1 million level for extra perks !

Great discussion. Have you guys seen anything recent about PRWCX opening to new investors? With the split in Price companies I’m hoping this happens soon. I’ve been waiting for 5 years to get in. Thx

Stillers, Thanks for the feedback - Definitely buying PRWCX regardless...my wife has owned it as her sole holding in her Roth IRA for 15 years.
I'll wait for additional thoughts...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312521326236/d233069d485apos.htm
Artisan Emerging Markets Debt Opportunities Fund
Artisan Global Unconstrained Fund

Howdy all,
@hank is spot on. Most of the world is skewering the Fed. However, they are one of the principal culprits. Inflation will be with us for a longer period than transitory. Shadow stats has it using the pre-1980 methodology around 14%.
Some of the issues will go away with more vaccinations around the world. Decriminalizing pot at the Federal level would take care of the truck driver situation. The CDL (Commerical Drivers License) is zero tolerance and drivers are subject to random testing. Pot has a half life of around 30 days. Removing it from the Schedule 1 drug list would probably change it on the CDL and ease that problem until the robots take over.
The wage push aspect of inflation is real and getting worse. This is what is going to prolong the high inflation environment. You all see the Hiring signs and have seen some of the offers being made to get staff. Many businesses and institutions are reducing their hours due to staff, Covid, etc. The General Employment strike is real and having a major impact. The suggestion had been to raise the minimum wage to $15 and index it to inflation. As I type, this is almost a fait accompli. I've seen and heard of some fairly obscene raises . . . and that's good. I worry most about the restaurants. I have no idea how they're going to cope with wages, cost of goods, energy costs vis-a-vis menu prices. This idiocy of paying tipped staff a sub minimum wage is stale and only exists to keep menu prices low as you pay extra to the waiter/waitress. Rubbish. I tip a lot of people that I do business with - barber, mail lady, etc. And this is in huge reason why they can't get staff. Not enough pay for what can be a fairly miserable job. We'll see various attempts at new business models, but it looks to me like it's double the menu prices if you want traditional sit-down restaurant.
As for the market, gee, the miners and pm's are showing some life, but who knows if it will last. Perhaps while there is a significant sense of inflation. It's a fairly easy sector to run a momentum play. Here's the sand box if you want to get crazy.
http://www.kitcosilver.com/equities.html
and so it goes,
peace and wear the damn mask,
rono

Chris Hayes's take:
The entire economy feels a bit like the moment a big concert or playoff game ends and everyone's trying to get out of the parking lot. "Transitory" can last a maddeningly long time, but the conditions that produce it are, indeed, temporary not structural.
A significant percentage (2 points maybe) is gasoline, some argue.
Interesting thread on other variables:
https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/status/1458568877479055366

At some point, we all overthink our investment choices and I'm bouncing this idea off of the MFO folks to provide me some reasoning/guidance.
In my Rollover where 60% of my retirement assets currently sit, I have a healthy, diversified portfolio. In particular, I spread my Large Cap OEF's across Growth, Blend/Core and Value. I consider style, overlap, cost, holdings, Up/Down, SD and Beta. Currently I have the following - HCAIX (Growth), PRDGX (Blend), HCMAX (Value).
TRP has a new Summit 'program' that kicks off on Nov. 15th and part of that is existing clients with a certain asset level will be able to purchase closed OEF's. I'd like to buy PRWCX and use it as a Allocation/Tactical sleeve in my Rollover. I know it's not considered 'tactical' but Giroux successfully moves to all types of investments beyond the atypical equity/fixed income in a tactical fashion.
Here is the potential overthinking - Should I add this and keep the PRDGX position? The Equity sleeve of PRWCX(50-70%) is typically invested in Core/Blend style box...there are also approx 20 holdings that overlap with PRDGX. I recognize that's the overthinking part and not a big deal but it's something I always review.
Would you use PRWCX as an allocation/tactical play and add it or replace PRDGX? I also own BCOIX and PRSNX as my fixed income investments.

Not directly related ... But the “talking heads” this morning (Bloomberg) appear to be on steroids. Or maybe caffeine overdose? “Primal screaming” cited by one re yesterday’s trading. LOL
What happened yesterday?
- 30 year treasury bond came to life and bounced significantly higher. But is still under 2%. Interest sensitive intermediate-term (and longer) bond funds took a small hit. Mine were off between .33 & .50%. Looks like the less creditworthy issues held up somewhat better.
- “Dots” not yet connected by the pundits ... with the U.S. bond market closed today, some of the interest rate momentum upward yesterday was in anticipation of not being able to trade today - and with equity markets open.
- The more aggressive equity growth funds seemed to get hit hardest - although TSLA gained 4% following a recent 10% down day. TRBCX dropped 1.4% as one example. Precious metals and miners spiked.
- For once, movement across asset / fund classes in my portfolio was similar - with the moderate growth portion losing .40%, The investment grade paper was off .20%. The 3 alternatives combined fell about .30% in combination.
- HSGFX gained .49% putting it about break-even for the year.(I don’t own it.).
- To the crux of the OP, it’s probably a combination of baked-in inflation and transitory coming from temporary supply / labor shortages. I’m not expecting 6+ % annual “official” inflation over the next few years (using CPI figures). Admittedly, a fool’s errand to try and predict what inflation will be in the next 1-3 years.
- TAIL, which I’ve owned only a few weeks, has around 90% in LT treasuries and most of the remainder in “puts” on selected components of the S&P - if I understand correctly. That’s why it struggled yesterday, losing about a half percent. Time will tell how much of a drag that bond exposure is during major downturns. I view it as a short - intermediate term hedge. Could “screw the pooch” with this one. :)
- TMSRX held its own. Lost a penny or two.
- PRWCX held up remarkably well (-.42%). Giroux’s high cash level and avoidance of long term bonds paid off.
- Miners look hot again today. Up around 2% in pre-markets. Can flip on a dime. The more broadly based miners (like NGLOY) are screaming hot this morning.
- DKNG? / NY State granted it permission to operate in the state along with 5-6 competing outfits. But revenue will be taxed at 51%. I guess the news broke Friday, the same day I unloaded my small spec position. Looks like it’s off between 5-8% since than.

Found this excerpt in 11/9/21 WSJ titled, "Semiconductor Industry Isn’t Spending Big on Scarce Old-Tech Chips."
The article mentions that ASML is the only producer of the industry’s most advanced lithography equipment, is fully booked through the start of 2023.
ASML closed down $32.20 to $817.85 this evening.

Thanks for all the input and interesting ideas.
I missed the M* article, but I have dropped a lot of their stuff as it is all nonsense.
How can you take a firm that claims to be aimed at individual investors seriously, when it includes funds (GCCHX) with $5,000,000 minimums?

M* started out as a firm focused on individual investors.
Their focus has shifted more towards advisors and asset managers in recent years.
I find value in M* Fund Analyst Reports, FundInvestor newsletters, Portfolio X-Ray, The Long View podcasts, and various articles.
However, not all of their content is high-quality.
Some M* content doesn't quite measure up.

Thanks for all the input and interesting ideas.
I missed the M* article, but I have dropped a lot of their stuff as it is all nonsense.
How can you take a firm that claims to be aimed at individual investors seriously, when it includes funds (GCCHX) with $5,000,000 minimums?

@Crash - 1 year return is 55%. You are quoting YTD.