Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Sigh. Always good to know what you own. Going from 60% to 70% stock in a fund explicitly permitted and designed to do that per manager judgment, well, that's why we pay active managers. If you want something other, get something other; almost any 401k has 100% equity and 100% bond, so mix to your own taste. Otherwise be patient and go with your manager. I hope to God nobody tells Frontline about this, else they do another idiot alarmist report.
For me it is more about allowing the manager to capitalize on perceived opportunity. In my book it is allowing some flexability to go where opportunity bounds. I have a good number of funds that have this type of flexability ... and, I invested in them because of their flexible manadate whether it be range bound between 50% equity or 70% equity I let the manager choose.
PRWCX fits the bill for a 70/30 mutual fund referenced in the article.
Starting a new position in PRWCX at exactly the wrong time (May 2008) would have lost 35%, but a portfolio of equal parts EDV (Vanguard long duration Bonds) and PRWCX would have navigated the market storms and acted as life preservers for each fund/etf over the last 5 years.
Here are these two investments charted over the last 5 years. Rebalancing would add to the profitability of this portfolio.
I could only find three short time frames (highlighted in red) when both investment where negative at the same time.
Just a heads up that linking to the print versions does not work on mobile devices (phones or tablets) with Android or iOS on an increasing number of sites including this one. They redirect you to a digital subscription page as in this case. Many sites are redirecting all mobile devices for ANY page to a register/subscription/mobile app while it works fine on desktops and laptops whose use is decreasing.
Mobile devices, while making things convenient are leading to an erosion of the concept of the web with proprietary apps rather than universal web pages accessible from any device.
Reply to @Mona: Its present 9% cash position now maybe the difference. Back in 2008 this fund certainly put this cash to work. Right now this might be harder to do is my thought. Historically PRWCX allocates closer to 70% to equities.
Comments
Starting a new position in PRWCX at exactly the wrong time (May 2008) would have lost 35%, but a portfolio of equal parts EDV (Vanguard long duration Bonds) and PRWCX would have navigated the market storms and acted as life preservers for each fund/etf over the last 5 years.
Here are these two investments charted over the last 5 years. Rebalancing would add to the profitability of this portfolio.
I could only find three short time frames (highlighted in red) when both investment where negative at the same time.
Any thoughts on what will work going forward?
Why is M* indicating PRWCX has an allocation of 56.20% US Stock, 4.60% Non US Stock, and 24.41% Bond?
Mona
Domestic Stock 59.5%
Domestic Bond 26.6%
Cash 9.1%
Foreign Bonds 2.5%
Foreign Stock 2.3%
Convertibles 0.5%
Preferreds 0.2%
Options -0.4%
Regards,
Ted
Mobile devices, while making things convenient are leading to an erosion of the concept of the web with proprietary apps rather than universal web pages accessible from any device.