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.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation and Income Fund in registration
Well, if I throw anything into it, it will be because of the weightier bond portfolio, and less in equities. I can take advantage of Giroux's expertise, and still invest a bit more conservatively. Not going to give up PRWCX, however! Still DYING to see the ACTUAL holdings.
Not to be belligerent, but why? If you don't agree with the holdings, are you going to tell Giroux you disagree with him? So many have said, I need to see the holdings, but I don't get it. I know I'm not smarter than he and his team.
Not to be belligerent, but why? If you don't agree with the holdings, are you going to tell Giroux you disagree with him? So many have said, I need to see the holdings, but I don't get it. I know I'm not smarter than he and his team.
Speaking for myself, it's just the way I was raised. Along the way it just became part of my curiosity toolkit to compare and contrast funds and their holdings, as well as what they are charging for doing business with them.
One example I can think of involves green energy funds. I steered clear of the ones that featured a lot of consumer durables in the nature of electric vehicles. That's more of a sector orientation though. And I can't say that it has done me much good so far.
Another example would be cogitating on the performance difference between FBALX and PRWCX.
Speaking for myself, it's just the way I was raised. Along the way it just became part of my curiosity toolkit to compare and contrast funds and their holdings, as well as what they are charging for doing business with them.
One example I can think of involves green energy funds. I steered clear of the ones that featured a lot of consumer durables in the nature of electric vehicles. That's more of a sector orientation though. And I can't say that it has done me much good so far.
Another example would be cogitating on the performance difference between FBALX and PRWCX.
Same. To wit: I remember when Berkwitz's Fairholme Fund was all the rage; I looked and its' top holding was like 40% of the fund, so I thought that was a little much (it was either Sears or St Joe, I forget). I just like to know what it holds & how it's allocated/investing before I jump onboard!
Same when PRGTX was the 'hot' fund a few years ago - its #1 holding was like 10-15% in TSLA. which was an immediate turn-off for me.
Not to be belligerent, but why? If you don't agree with the holdings, are you going to tell Giroux you disagree with him? So many have said, I need to see the holdings, but I don't get it. I know I'm not smarter than he and his team.
Actually, the WHY is pretty simple: I don't wanna buy a pig in a poke.
Fair enough @Crash. But we both know Giroux and his investment process is no pig-in-a-poke. I'm fully invested already, but my circumstances are different. I had a lot of cash that needed a longer-term investment.
No surprise on stock holding, but then again, why would they be any different than PRWCX and TCAF? I think if yo buy PRCFX and sprinkle in some TCAF, you have something that taste pretty much like PRWCX
mfo does not describe how PRCFX is built up, but if it is somehow via PRWCX assets, then again i must ask what could be the attraction to legacy investors. same question, if new seeded cash simply replicates PRWCX. the delta or non-identical holdings seems aspirational for now, and potentially insignificant for longer periods.
mfo does not describe how PRCFX is built up, but if it is somehow via PRWCX assets, then again i must ask what could be the attraction to legacy investors. same question, if new seeded cash simply replicates PRWCX. the delta or non-identical holdings seems aspirational for now, and potentially insignificant for longer periods.
The attraction is that the style would be similar to PRWCX, but in a 40/60 package. One could pair the two and get about 50/50.
The attraction for many, I assume, is for investors locked out of PRWCX due to its prolonged closure. TRP put a hard close on PRWCX many years ago. I jumped on PRFCX when it became available and paired it with TCAF, so hopefully the result will replicate PRWCX.
How long has Bruce held JOE as a material holding? What %age of FAIRX does Bruce own? The fund has 2 stocks amounting to 87% of Portfolio and 10% in cash. The other one being EPD. He must have God status in the eyes of Fund shareholders!
FYI, I purchased shares in PRCFX 12/8/23 and 1/4/24 through Fidelity. Both transactions took 3-4 days to settle. I’ve never had a fund purchase take so long to settle since I’ve been doing transactions online. I plan to speak to someone at Fidelity about the reasons for this, as I missed at least one day of gains. I don’t know if the transaction would have been delayed so long if conducted at the TRP website, but I haven’t encountered such problems with other third party fund purchases at Fidelity. This is something that others might want to be aware of if considering this fund.
FYI, I purchased shares in PRCFX 12/8/23 and 1/4/24 through Fidelity. Both transactions took 3-4 days to settle. I’ve never had a fund purchase take so long to settle since I’ve been doing transactions online. I plan to speak to someone at Fidelity about the reasons for this, as I missed at least one day of gains. I don’t know if the transaction would have been delayed so long if conducted at the TRP website, but I haven’t encountered such problems with other third party fund purchases at Fidelity. This is something that others might want to be aware of if considering this fund.
Glad you told us about that! Stinky, maybe even poopy, too. I do all my trades at TRP. They are "threatening" to put forward a website upgrade. Oh Joy! Oh Rapture! TRP fund entry minimums are $2,500.00. All others require an initial $5,000.00.
@yogibearbull — I’ve purchased numerous third party funds through Fidelity over the years, and I’ve never had a transaction take so long to settle. This was a cash purchase, not an exchange. In other cases, if I placed an order before 4 pm, the purchase price was the fund’s closing value on that day.
FYI, I purchased shares in PRCFX 12/8/23 and 1/4/24 through Fidelity. Both transactions took 3-4 days to settle. I’ve never had a fund purchase take so long to settle since I’ve been doing transactions online. I plan …
The settlement date for shares purchased on 12/8 was 12/11. Settlement date for shares purchased on 1/5 was 1/8. Both purchases occurred on a Friday, well before market closing. Both purchases did not settle until closing prices on Monday. In every transaction I can recall at Fidelity, if I purchased a fund before market closing, the settlement price was the closing price on the day of purchase.
In the long run, it’s no big deal. However, it’s irksome because the fund had a nice gain on Monday, which I missed. It should have been a rare instance in which a fund that I bought had a nice gain the first day after purchase. Usually I’m not so lucky, so I guess my bad luck is holding.
The bigger issue for me is that it seems to be another example of eroding customer service at TRP, assuming the problem was on their end. I have sold a number of TRP funds over the past year because of declining performance and this is another straw on the camel’s back.
If the orders were placed before 4 p.m. ET, the share purchase price should have been the NAV close that day. Unless the transaction request was not in "correct form" - whatever that means. From the prospectus:
How the Trade Date Is Determined "If you invest through a financial intermediary and your transaction request is received by T. Rowe Price or its agent in correct form by the close of the NYSE, your transaction will be priced at that business day’s net asset value. If your request is received by T. Rowe Price or its agent in correct form after the close of the NYSE, your transaction will be priced at the next business day’s net asset value unless the fund has an agreement with your financial intermediary for orders to be priced at the net asset value next computed after receipt by the financial intermediary."
Not sure I understand why you are focused on settlement date when you are buying. Your trade date determines your purchase price. If the settlement is T+2, instead of T+1, presumably Fidelity gives you an extra day of interest on your money that was used to settle the trade. I would speak with your Fidelity Rep about any perceived discrepancy.
If a mutual fund order is entered BEFORE 4 PM Eastern market close (beware that some brokers may have earlier cutoffs, but none of the major ones do now), you will get the closing NAV of THAT day. BTW, I have successfully entered mutual fund orders as close as 3:58 PM or 3:59 PM at multiple sites, but that is cutting it too close - any network disruption or transmission issue can cause order failure.
Settlement is only when the funds are due for the trade (T+1 for mutual funds, T+2 for stocks/ETFs/CEFs). Prices/NAVs are never set on settlement dates. If that does happen, report to the SEC or FINRA.
In cash accounts, Fido, Schwab, etc don't allow order entry without settled cash in core/settlement account, but Vanguard does with a prominent warning on when funds are due. Margin accounts don't have this issue.
Sorry if I’m being unclear. Here is what happened step by step.
On Thursday, 1/4, I sold $20K in another fund. Fidelity website reported that the sale went through at the closing price Thursday, and that my account had $20,000 cash available to trade,
I went ahead and placed orders to reinvest $10K each in two funds, PRCFX and FMSDX. I received an email from Fidelity acknowledging both orders on Friday morning. The Fidelity fund purchase settled without a hitch at the closing price on Friday, as expected. The trade for PRCFX was listed as “settlement pending” on Friday and throughout the weekend. Purchase did not occur until closing price on Monday, so I missed market gains I should have received if purchase had occurred on Friday.
My issue is that, in the past, if I bought shares in an NTF fund with available cash on a given day, my purchase price was the closing price on that day. Always. So I lost $62 in potential gains. Not a huge amount of money, but I’ve never had this happen before. I’ll talk to someone at Fidelity for clarification. I’m sure that in the fine print it says that transactions can sometimes take longer.
FYI, I talked to a Fidelity representative this morning and this is what I found out. My additional shares in PRCFX were purchased at Friday’s closing price. For some reason, the transaction didn’t settle until Monday, but that seems to be irrelevant because I got the Friday closing price.
The problem seems to be a Fidelity website glitch. For some reason, the listings in my taxable account, where this purchase was made, shows a daily gain of 0.12% for this fund on Monday. I own the exact same fund in our Roth IRAs, and those two holdings show a gain of 0.63% on Monday. This is why my confusion arose. The Fidelity rep told they they have been having website issues with some funds not displaying properly. However, he assured me that my additional shares were purchased at Friday’s price and would eventually display correctly as the website updates.
Comments
One example I can think of involves green energy funds. I steered clear of the ones that featured a lot of consumer durables in the nature of electric vehicles. That's more of a sector orientation though. And I can't say that it has done me much good so far.
Another example would be cogitating on the performance difference between FBALX and PRWCX.
Same when PRGTX was the 'hot' fund a few years ago - its #1 holding was like 10-15% in TSLA. which was an immediate turn-off for me.
These were the very initial allocations for PRCFX when Total Assets were only $25M:
Holdings at Nov 30, 2023:
Domestic Bonds 51%
Domestic Stocks 40%
Cash 5%
Foreign Bonds 4%
Top Holdings:
Microsoft
Apple
Google
Amazon
UnitedHealth Grp
the delta or non-identical holdings seems aspirational for now, and potentially insignificant for longer periods.
Fairholme only has 80% in St. Joe stock as of Aug 2023. He must know something and/or he thinks he is running a hedge fund.
1/4/23 was Thursday. T+1 settlement would be Friday, 1/5/23.
This assuming that orders were in BEFORE 4 PM Eastern.
If AFTER 4 PM, then dates would be 12/12/23 and 1/8/23.
In the long run, it’s no big deal. However, it’s irksome because the fund had a nice gain on Monday, which I missed. It should have been a rare instance in which a fund that I bought had a nice gain the first day after purchase. Usually I’m not so lucky, so I guess my bad luck is holding.
The bigger issue for me is that it seems to be another example of eroding customer service at TRP, assuming the problem was on their end. I have sold a number of TRP funds over the past year because of declining performance and this is another straw on the camel’s back.
Unless the transaction request was not in "correct form" - whatever that means.
From the prospectus:
How the Trade Date Is Determined
"If you invest through a financial intermediary and your transaction request
is received by T. Rowe Price or its agent in correct form by the close of the NYSE,
your transaction will be priced at that business day’s net asset value.
If your request is received by T. Rowe Price or its agent in correct form after the close of the NYSE,
your transaction will be priced at the next business day’s net asset value unless the fund
has an agreement with your financial intermediary for orders to be priced at the net asset value
next computed after receipt by the financial intermediary."
Not sure I understand why you are focused on settlement date when you are buying. Your trade date determines your purchase price. If the settlement is T+2, instead of T+1, presumably Fidelity gives you an extra day of interest on your money that was used to settle the trade. I would speak with your Fidelity Rep about any perceived discrepancy.
If a mutual fund order is entered BEFORE 4 PM Eastern market close (beware that some brokers may have earlier cutoffs, but none of the major ones do now), you will get the closing NAV of THAT day. BTW, I have successfully entered mutual fund orders as close as 3:58 PM or 3:59 PM at multiple sites, but that is cutting it too close - any network disruption or transmission issue can cause order failure.
Settlement is only when the funds are due for the trade (T+1 for mutual funds, T+2 for stocks/ETFs/CEFs). Prices/NAVs are never set on settlement dates. If that does happen, report to the SEC or FINRA.
In cash accounts, Fido, Schwab, etc don't allow order entry without settled cash in core/settlement account, but Vanguard does with a prominent warning on when funds are due. Margin accounts don't have this issue.
On Thursday, 1/4, I sold $20K in another fund. Fidelity website reported that the sale went through at the closing price Thursday, and that my account had $20,000 cash available to trade,
I went ahead and placed orders to reinvest $10K each in two funds, PRCFX and FMSDX. I received an email from Fidelity acknowledging both orders on Friday morning. The Fidelity fund purchase settled without a hitch at the closing price on Friday, as expected. The trade for PRCFX was listed as “settlement pending” on Friday and throughout the weekend. Purchase did not occur until closing price on Monday, so I missed market gains I should have received if purchase had occurred on Friday.
My issue is that, in the past, if I bought shares in an NTF fund with available cash on a given day, my purchase price was the closing price on that day. Always. So I lost $62 in potential gains. Not a huge amount of money, but I’ve never had this happen before. I’ll talk to someone at Fidelity for clarification. I’m sure that in the fine print it says that transactions can sometimes take longer.
The problem seems to be a Fidelity website glitch. For some reason, the listings in my taxable account, where this purchase was made, shows a daily gain of 0.12% for this fund on Monday. I own the exact same fund in our Roth IRAs, and those two holdings show a gain of 0.63% on Monday. This is why my confusion arose. The Fidelity rep told they they have been having website issues with some funds not displaying properly. However, he assured me that my additional shares were purchased at Friday’s price and would eventually display correctly as the website updates.
Sorry for all the drama.