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.
Nice to see Dodge & Cox get some recognition in the linked article. I really think the question is unanswerable as stated. So much depends on what you want in a fund (long-term growth? stability? low expenses? diversification?). But, I continue to be amazed by how well PRWCX has performed over the past decade in relation to its relatively low-moderate risk profile. This may be due in large measure to the underlying quality of the T. Rowe Price family. Perhaps a better question: What fund houses do you continue to put lots of trust in and why?
I have to admit that I am perpetually surprised at the lack of mention/recognition for TRPrice organization on this board in comparison with Fidelity and Vanguard. Maybe I'm biased as a local, but I just have to respect the quality of the TRP organization as a whole, and I am always pleased to see them perform well also. (Disclaimer, I use TRP, including PRWCX, and also Vanguard, never have used Fidelity, so can't judge them personally. )
Reply to @hank: I agree with you that TRP is a quality fund house. Not only in their funds, but how they treat their customers. I have always found them extremely helpful and diligent. I had the pleasure of participating in what might be called a long term focus group online. One aspect that many participants commented on was how much TRP listened to our suggestions, incorporated many of them, and continued iterating with our involvement. They took us seriously. A class act.
(I also like them because they were the only family for several years to offer an individual 401K with a Roth option. Vanguard finally added one. Fidelity? Each time I remind them, they tell me that they've had lots of requests, but it's always on the drawing board.)
On the other hand, we have Zacks. Once again, an article from them that does little but string together random "facts", often wrong. Look at the description of Royce Global Value. It does not invest a minimum of 35% in non-convertible debt, but a maximum of 35% in non-convertible debt and preferred stock (per summary prospectus).
Its expense ratio is not 1.69% as Zacks states. Rather, it is currently waiving fees to limit its expense ratio excluding the cost of acquired funds to 1.69%. Even with this waiver in place, the stated ER is 1.70%. And I'd like to know how a fund that M* awards one star can be a top rated fund in anyone's book. We can all quibble about the star ratings, but it's pretty clear that this is a global fund (i.e. not misclassified), and its M* performance rankings for 1/3/5 years are 97%, 94%, 77%.
Comments
I agree with you that TRP is a quality fund house. Not only in their funds, but how they treat their customers. I have always found them extremely helpful and diligent. I had the pleasure of participating in what might be called a long term focus group online. One aspect that many participants commented on was how much TRP listened to our suggestions, incorporated many of them, and continued iterating with our involvement. They took us seriously. A class act.
(I also like them because they were the only family for several years to offer an individual 401K with a Roth option. Vanguard finally added one. Fidelity? Each time I remind them, they tell me that they've had lots of requests, but it's always on the drawing board.)
On the other hand, we have Zacks. Once again, an article from them that does little but string together random "facts", often wrong. Look at the description of Royce Global Value. It does not invest a minimum of 35% in non-convertible debt, but a maximum of 35% in non-convertible debt and preferred stock (per summary prospectus).
Its expense ratio is not 1.69% as Zacks states. Rather, it is currently waiving fees to limit its expense ratio excluding the cost of acquired funds to 1.69%. Even with this waiver in place, the stated ER is 1.70%. And I'd like to know how a fund that M* awards one star can be a top rated fund in anyone's book. We can all quibble about the star ratings, but it's pretty clear that this is a global fund (i.e. not misclassified), and its M* performance rankings for 1/3/5 years are 97%, 94%, 77%.