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.
Damn I wish they had one for Giroux!! I’ve been wanting to get into his fund for years. Had hoped they would reopen it with the splitting of T Rowe into 2 units. Has anyone heard any recent discussion of PRWCX reopening?
If you scroll down, there are several level of Summit investors, depending on the level of asset in TRP. In order to get into closed funds as institutional shares, the amount of $250K is required.
PRWCX is TRP's most successful fund. Seriously doubt they would change the existing structure.
TRP would be the best to give you the correct answer. Pretty sure you can put in the entire $250K. Transferring asset to TRP requires signature guarantee at your local bank.
I thought about it when it was made available. Since we own PRWCX in multiple accounts, and moving to TRP would save 0.10% in institutional shares. In the end, we decided against the move.
My impression is launching a PRWCX ETF would not only be unlikely from a business perspective--it doesn't need an ETF sales boost--but is impractical and maybe impossible because of its unique strategy. It doesn't just hold common stocks, but less liquid securities like floating rate loans, preferred stocks, and convertible bonds. While semi-transparent or non-transparent active ETFs can hold common stocks as they are very liquid and easy to price, the SEC has not been fond of allowing illiquid securities in ETFs with holdings that are opaque to investors in a non-transparent ETF structure as pricing of those securities can be difficult. Such illiquid securities are allowed in fully transparent ETFs, but then PRWCX would be tipping its hand as to its holdings every day, opening itself up to front-running in securities that are hard to trade.
Such illiquid securities are allowed in fully transparent ETFs, but then PRWCX would be tipping its hand as to its holdings every day, opening itself up to front-running in securities that are hard to trade.
Front-running is bad for existing shareholders. Besides, there is no reporting that PRWCX is experiencing large redemption.
Such illiquid securities are allowed in fully transparent ETFs, but then PRWCX would be tipping its hand as to its holdings every day, opening itself up to front-running in securities that are hard to trade.
Front-running is bad for existing shareholders. Besides, there is no reporting that PRWCX is experiencing large redemption.
Comments
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1795351/000174177322004211/c485apos.htm
https://troweprice.com/personal-investing/about/client-benefits/index.html
If you scroll down, there are several level of Summit investors, depending on the level of asset in TRP. In order to get into closed funds as institutional shares, the amount of $250K is required.
PRWCX is TRP's most successful fund. Seriously doubt they would change the existing structure.
I thought about it when it was made available. Since we own PRWCX in multiple accounts, and moving to TRP would save 0.10% in institutional shares. In the end, we decided against the move.