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.
PRWCX is about 8% of my stash. It is in my Roth account. I'm no longer working so I can't contribute more that way, but could move some from another fund company to there. I did it once a few years ago. I'm not adding more as I am fine where it is now, but otherwise would.
It would depend on your investing beliefs (is this diversified enough? etc etc) about holding chiefly LCB-LCG in the form of "only" <200 stocks as 70% or less of your invested moneys. Many of us wish they had all their nut in it. Successfully managed, of course. (Grad of laughable rightwingnut Hillsdale College, which might give some pause, I suppose, though not recent.)
PRWCX = one-third of my total. Still a believer. I am certainly disobeying the old maxim that says no single holding should exceed 20% of one's portfolio. Giroux is an expert at reading the tea leaves, to my mind. I do not think he tries to be a market-timer, but he makes me lots of money for me being not where the puck is, but where the puck is GOING to be. (Gretzky.)
If you are going to overweight a fund @Bobpa, that would be the one in my opinion. Having 50% in 3 balanced funds seems fine to me too, as long as you have some diversification in the other 50% of total. FWIW, in my self managed portfolio PRWCX is about 25% of total, but more like 10-12% of everything.
+1 david Good point on Giroux-if a Michigan native he could have attended any of the numerous state universities, including UM, MSU and WMU that would have easily met his academic needs including a lower tuition !
I only have one reservation about placing too much in a single fund (no matter how good it's past performance) with a star manager outstanding as he is. What happens should the unforeseen happen? Stuff happens right? I think one just needs to judge that risk for themselves.
Giroux is great, but PRWCX was stellar before he came aboard (under Boesel, and Howard before him). I will be bummed if Giroux retires or otherwise goes away, but I don’t think this is like other key-man risk scenarios.
+1 david Good point on Giroux - if a Michigan native he could have attended any of the numerous state universities, including UM, MSU and WMU that would have easily met his academic needs including a lower tuition !
But would it have met his spiritual / cultural / political needs?
@davidmoron I know little of Hillsdale College but what I can tell you about my college experience is it was a special place where ideologies could co-exist and clash…I recall General Westmoreland debated with an audience of antiwar protesters and Vietnam Vets… tough talks need to have a place to happen away from the hype of (you fill in the blank).
Not advocating our method for everyone by any means but the KISS method is working great for us. Tried diversifying into other allocation funds back in 2011 after first investing in PRWCX in 2006 and all that did was cost us money!
Maxed out our 2022 ROTH IRA contributions this past Wednesday 2/23 and purchased more TRAIX.
I would say it depends on how much your portfolio value is, no? I would think if you had for convo's sake, over $5-10MM or even $500k, maybe 20% would be the most I would be comfortable with in one fund, diverse holdings as it might hold regardless.
I seem to recall someone here stating a friend of their's had all their monies in was it Blackrock Global Allocation MALOX, fund and was way comfortable with it. Thinking was it was hands off, was diversified, US/Intl, Stonk, Bonds etc.
Also remember reading an article way back in IBD Investors Bidness Daily about that, just keep adding to one diversified fund and keep going...
When I was a yute, I had 5 stonks I started with, Raytheon, Kellogg, Coca Cola, Merck and Walmart...I haven't looked but if I just stayed with those 5 over the past call it close to 40 years, prolly would have done alright.
But ya, PRWCX, darn good place to put your monies.
Dangerous times indeed, cannot believe how many thinks what is going on in Ukraine is just some event that won't affect our markets and our way of life for years to come.
BTW...@davidmoran...don't even get me started on 1619 project, CRT etc...I'll just say I disagree with your leftist progressive thinking and posted articles and leave it at that...and see you at the polls this autumn...
>> 1619 project, CRT etc...I'll just say I disagree with your leftist progressive thinking and posted articles
Har. You literally do not know what you're talking about with respect to my "thinking," but haven't we had this ignorant exchange already?
Unless maybe you think it's "leftist-prog" to point out Vietnam War as mistaken enormity, inequality as harmful in several ways, and so on, in which case dozens of polls would show your labeling error.
My "posted articles" are of others' macroeconomic analyses, generally. You should explain your disagreements with them, to enlighten us all.
"Mearsheimer said that the U.S. had led Ukrainians 'down the primrose path,' angering the Russians and giving Moscow 'all sorts of incentives to wreck Ukraine as a country,' without committing to protecting it. 'The only way this can be resolved is with the U.S. and NATO saying that Ukraine will not become part of NATO,' Mearsheimer said. 'The Russians want it in writing. And I think this crisis will go away once this happens.'"
+1. I don't bet uncle Vlad the P.O.S. will ever get that promise from NATO. Mearsheimer is spot-on in terms of Realpolitik. Meanwhile, "under the table," the allies are agreeing not to admit Ukraine into NATO until there is a big sea-change, a regime change in terms of the ubiquitous corruption in that country. Ukraine is the victim in the present circumstance, it's true. Support with weapons and planes and choppers from other countries is justified in their attempt at self-defense. I've seen a couple of news reports today saying they have met with some success at repelling the Russkies. I cannot help but to hope they are successful. An invasion is an invasion. And it sucks.
\\\ It would depend on your investing beliefs (is this diversified enough? etc etc) about holding chiefly LCB-LCG in the form of "only" <200 stocks as 70% or less of your invested moneys. Many of us wish they had all their nut in it. Successfully managed, of course. (Grad of laughable rightwingnut Hillsdale College, which might give some pause, I suppose, though not recent.)
Comments
Anyone who went to that unusual place in the later 1990s (much less since) knew what they were in for, even as the comical Trumpy 1619-reaction '1776 curriculum' (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/trump-ally-1619-project-500464; https://k12.hillsdale.edu/Curriculum/The-Hillsdale-1776-Curriculum/) and the even more comical 'National Survey on Socialism' (https://lp.hillsdale.edu/2019-national-survey-on-socialism/) lay in the future. (The latter is wild; check it out.)
The policy to take no federal funds, so as not to be subject to anti-discrimination regs, among other reactionary reactions, was in effect when he was there (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-controversial-reason-some-religious-colleges-forgo-federal-funding/490253/)
I know little of Hillsdale College but what I can tell you about my college experience is it was a special place where ideologies could co-exist and clash…I recall General Westmoreland debated with an audience of antiwar protesters and Vietnam Vets… tough talks need to have a place to happen away from the hype of (you fill in the blank).
Not advocating our method for everyone by any means but the KISS method is working great for us. Tried diversifying into other allocation funds back in 2011 after first investing in PRWCX in 2006 and all that did was cost us money!
Maxed out our 2022 ROTH IRA contributions this past Wednesday 2/23 and purchased more TRAIX.
Well, sure. The complete opposite of Hillsdale.
>> Westmoreland debated with an audience of antiwar protesters and Vietnam Vets
Yup. Those were the days.
For all the good it did.
What a hapless death-dealing schmuck he was.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/todays-list-the-top-ten-reasons-gen-westmoreland-lost-the-war-in-vietnam/
And the entire hugely destructive misadventure built and rebuilt on lies, again and again. Jeez.
I would say it depends on how much your portfolio value is, no? I would think if you had for convo's sake, over $5-10MM or even $500k, maybe 20% would be the most I would be comfortable with in one fund, diverse holdings as it might hold regardless.
I seem to recall someone here stating a friend of their's had all their monies in was it Blackrock Global Allocation MALOX, fund and was way comfortable with it. Thinking was it was hands off, was diversified, US/Intl, Stonk, Bonds etc.
Also remember reading an article way back in IBD Investors Bidness Daily about that, just keep adding to one diversified fund and keep going...
When I was a yute, I had 5 stonks I started with, Raytheon, Kellogg, Coca Cola, Merck and Walmart...I haven't looked but if I just stayed with those 5 over the past call it close to 40 years, prolly would have done alright.
But ya, PRWCX, darn good place to put your monies.
Dangerous times indeed, cannot believe how many thinks what is going on in Ukraine is just some event that won't affect our markets and our way of life for years to come.
BTW...@davidmoran...don't even get me started on 1619 project, CRT etc...I'll just say I disagree with your leftist progressive thinking and posted articles and leave it at that...and see you at the polls this autumn...
Best Regards to ALL,
Baseball Fan
45 minutes, plus Q and A.
Har. You literally do not know what you're talking about with respect to my "thinking," but haven't we had this ignorant exchange already?
Unless maybe you think it's "leftist-prog" to point out Vietnam War as mistaken enormity, inequality as harmful in several ways, and so on, in which case dozens of polls would show your labeling error.
My "posted articles" are of others' macroeconomic analyses, generally. You should explain your disagreements with them, to enlighten us all.
"Mearsheimer said that the U.S. had led Ukrainians 'down the primrose path,' angering the Russians and giving Moscow 'all sorts of incentives to wreck Ukraine as a country,' without committing to protecting it. 'The only way this can be resolved is with the U.S. and NATO saying that Ukraine will not become part of NATO,' Mearsheimer said. 'The Russians want it in writing. And I think this crisis will go away once this happens.'"
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/the-new-doves-on-ukraine
I wonder if he has turned up or will turn up on TV this weekend.
I don't bet uncle Vlad the P.O.S. will ever get that promise from NATO. Mearsheimer is spot-on in terms of Realpolitik. Meanwhile, "under the table," the allies are agreeing not to admit Ukraine into NATO until there is a big sea-change, a regime change in terms of the ubiquitous corruption in that country. Ukraine is the victim in the present circumstance, it's true. Support with weapons and planes and choppers from other countries is justified in their attempt at self-defense. I've seen a couple of news reports today saying they have met with some success at repelling the Russkies. I cannot help but to hope they are successful. An invasion is an invasion. And it sucks.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-02-05/explainer-ukraine-not-joining-nato-so-why-does-putin-worry
his whole shtick is built on delusion, not that that's uncommon:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/2/23/22945781/russia-ukraine-putin-speech-transcript-february-22
My op, so to speak
\\\ It would depend on your investing beliefs (is this diversified enough? etc etc) about holding chiefly LCB-LCG in the form of "only" <200 stocks as 70% or less of your invested moneys. Many of us wish they had all their nut in it. Successfully managed, of course. (Grad of laughable rightwingnut Hillsdale College, which might give some pause, I suppose, though not recent.)