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.
Thanks for the heads-up @WABAC. I have wanted to add-to PRWCX in my 401k at Merrill forever. It would never allow me to do so in the past. I just put in an order to do so. Seems to have been accepted. Has a $49 TF but I'm ok with that. Fingers crossed it goes through.
Thanks for the heads-up @WABAC. I have wanted to add-to PRWCX in my 401k at Merrill forever. It would never allow me to do so in the past. I just put in an order to do so. Seems to have been accepted. Has a $49 TF but I'm ok with that. Fingers crossed it goes through.
Wow. In my ML accounts, it is NTF. Even for TF funds, I have to pay "just" $19.95.
Must be some special "discount" you get with your 401(k) plan
I did not know about availability to retail at ML until I read @msf post.
Available to new investors. No ($0) minimum. NTF.
Not sure why there is so much interest in this fund now. Its YTD performance is 48 percentile and it is a $62B fund with idiosyncratic sector allocation.
@msf, my 401k from a past employer transferred from TRP to ML last year. I've only kept the 401k because I cannot transfer PRWCX in-kind from a 401k to an IRA. The odd thing about the ML 401k account is the account is not direct from the Merrill Lynch website. It is in something called "Merrill Benefits Online". To be quite honest, the ML benefits options and website suck. I really don't like the arrangement but have kept it because it is where I have PRWCX.
I have tried a few times to add to PRWCX through this ML Benefits site and have been denied. I tried today after seeing this post and, low and behold, it took. And yes, with a $49.95 TF. I'll know tomorrow if it really went through.
Not sure why there is so much interest in this fund now. Its YTD performance is 48 percentile and it is a $62B fund with idiosyncratic sector allocation.
For me, if you are going to hold one fund forever, this would be it, (unless something drastically changes). If you are going to bounce around to the current newest and greatest return leader, then this statement would make sense. It wouldn't be advisable, to me, but short focused it might make sense. 48 percentile YTD but a 1st percentile balanced fund lifetime. Oh, and Idiosyncratic sector allocation is what has made this fund #1!
Deleting after three days as the post has too much of my personal information. I allowed enough time for forum members to benefit from the info. I do not want AI models or hackers to get to my info at a later date.
Not sure why there is so much interest in this fund now. Its YTD performance is 48 percentile and it is a $62B fund with idiosyncratic sector allocation.
Maybe the price is lower than it might otherwise be?
I suppose it benefits from its history of past performance, which predates the current manager. It seem like the type of steady-eddy fund that made T. Rowe famous back in the day.
Then too, it has not been available for some years. I added a small position to my IRA in June of 2014 shortly before it "closed."
Add the surprise factor that its apparent availability was unexpected.
Not sure why there is so much interest in this fund now. Its YTD performance is 48 percentile and it is a $62B fund with idiosyncratic sector allocation.
A fund like this should be expected to underperform during strong bull markets (like this year). In turn, it should be expected to outperform during down markets. Sounds like that’s the way it’s being run. Read the Prospectus / fund literature and it should be clear that’s how T. Rowe designed the fund.
@MikeM is right that “buy and hold” is the way to go with this one.
I do get @BaluBalu’s point that the interest in this particular fund sometimes seems overdone. Size alone would deter me from owning it.
Deleting after two days as the post has too much of my personal information. I allowed enough time for forum members to benefit from the info. I do not want AI models or hackers to get to my info at a later date.
With the stock market going up this year, my total equity exposure was not going up and so I wanted to check if I am fiddling too much with my port or my fund managers are fiddling too much.
Based on M* analysis, Giroux is defensively positioned in terms of total equity exposure. M* analyst (human) report says,
"Giroux and team deliver a high-conviction basket of roughly 50 stocks that account for 60%-70% of the fund’s assets. He’ll shift the exposures meaningfully when he identifies mispricing, such as scaling up equity exposure when drawdowns bring valuations to a more attractive level. Giroux executed this approach in 2018, early 2020, and again in 2022. Although such moves can be early at times, driving steeper short-term losses, they’ve paid off over the long run. Don’t expect the stock weight to fall below 60% often, if at all. The team is more confident in identifying market bottoms than tops."
I am probably more guilty than my fund managers for my lower than expected equity exposure.
Feel free to post if you noticed how any of your other funds are positioned.
I hope @WABAC does not mind my changing the direction of this thread.
With the stock market going up this year, my total equity exposure was not going up and so I wanted to check if I am fiddling too much with my port or my fund managers are fiddling too much.
Based on M* analysis, Giroux is defensively positioned in terms of total equity exposure. M* analyst (human) report says,
"Giroux and team deliver a high-conviction basket of roughly 50 stocks that account for 60%-70% of the fund’s assets. He’ll shift the exposures meaningfully when he identifies mispricing, such as scaling up equity exposure when drawdowns bring valuations to a more attractive level. Giroux executed this approach in 2018, early 2020, and again in 2022. Although such moves can be early at times, driving steeper short-term losses, they’ve paid off over the long run. Don’t expect the stock weight to fall below 60% often, if at all. The team is more confident in identifying market bottoms than tops."
I am probably more guilty than my fund managers for my lower than expected equity exposure.
Feel free to post if you noticed how any of your other funds are positioned.
I hope @WABAC does not mind my changing the direction of this thread.
Heavens to Betsy, what a thought; it has been moldering in the grave.
As described elsewhere, I dumped FBALX because their duration is too long for me, and I already have a couple of Fido stock pickers in FMILX and FDSVX.
WBALX Conserv. Alloc. fund is 4.32 % of my total. Your post above prompted me to look: It's 44% stocks, 47% fixed income. And 8.25% cash, but almost 5% short. And it's overweight in materials, compared to its Index. 10.5% in Materials.
it seems fairly obvious how giroux can\will manage more funds. the asset sleeves, in particular equity, will be mostly the same, differing a bit in weights.
sadly missing the unique opp to differ much more in mkt cap and foreign.
Build a M* portfolio with $10,000 worth of PRWCX and around $6,000 worth of TCAF. That is to account for the fact that only about 60% of PRWCX is in equity. So $6K of equity in this portfolio comes from PRWCX and $6K from TCAF.
Run X-ray and look at stock intersections.
There's an old saying: Give a man a fish ... If you want to know more about how these funds match up, go fish.
it is assumed that people realize the MF is not updated daily, and the overlap tool shows in order of combined weight, not in order of weight similarity.
that being said, i had to go all the way to ~30 on the list to find a stock not in both. up to that point, the weight difference looked to be usually ~0.5%.
when you consider the NAV is ~30X different (w/ similar median mkt caps), and has the same managers, i stand by my view that these equity sleeves are pretty much being run the same. differences in weights are probably just timing and reporting lags.
and just to be very clear, these different vehicles w/giroux serve to provide a loose commitment to different levels of asset exposure, not explicitly to vary in how that asset is expressed.
it is assumed that people realize the MF is not updated daily
Likewise, M* does not update etf holdings daily. The TCAF portfolio page says: "Holdings as of Sep 30, 2024". That's the same portfolio date as M* shows for PRWCX.
Comments
Consider a combination of:
- 23% position in TCAF
- 77% position in PRCFX
This combination (short historical data) seems to mimic PRWCX (composition/performance) along with the fact that it is the same management team.
https://portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=1utM2q2ITObBMibqFUO3Hl
Not sure if these ETFs are available for either of you.
Must be some special "discount" you get with your 401(k) plan
PRWCX is also closed to new investors at Fidelity.
I was looking to see if they had DODBX, and up popped PRWCX as an open fund.
Available to new investors. No ($0) minimum. NTF.
Not sure why there is so much interest in this fund now. Its YTD performance is 48 percentile and it is a $62B fund with idiosyncratic sector allocation.
I have tried a few times to add to PRWCX through this ML Benefits site and have been denied. I tried today after seeing this post and, low and behold, it took. And yes, with a $49.95 TF. I'll know tomorrow if it really went through.
I suppose it benefits from its history of past performance, which predates the current manager. It seem like the type of steady-eddy fund that made T. Rowe famous back in the day.
Then too, it has not been available for some years. I added a small position to my IRA in June of 2014 shortly before it "closed."
Add the surprise factor that its apparent availability was unexpected.
I have yet to check if the order went through.
A fund like this should be expected to underperform during strong bull markets (like this year). In turn, it should be expected to outperform during down markets. Sounds like that’s the way it’s being run. Read the Prospectus / fund literature and it should be clear that’s how T. Rowe designed the fund.
@MikeM is right that “buy and hold” is the way to go with this one.
I do get @BaluBalu’s point that the interest in this particular fund sometimes seems overdone. Size alone would deter me from owning it.
As of 10/31, FBALX is 65% in equity and PRWCX is 60% in equity.
https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/PRWCX
Based on M* analysis, Giroux is defensively positioned in terms of total equity exposure. M* analyst (human) report says,
"Giroux and team deliver a high-conviction basket of roughly 50 stocks that account for 60%-70% of the fund’s assets. He’ll shift the exposures meaningfully when he identifies mispricing, such as scaling up equity exposure when drawdowns bring valuations to a more attractive level. Giroux executed this approach in 2018, early 2020, and again in 2022. Although such moves can be early at times, driving steeper short-term losses, they’ve paid off over the long run. Don’t expect the stock weight to fall below 60% often, if at all. The team is more confident in identifying market bottoms than tops."
I am probably more guilty than my fund managers for my lower than expected equity exposure.
Feel free to post if you noticed how any of your other funds are positioned.
I hope @WABAC does not mind my changing the direction of this thread.
As described elsewhere, I dumped FBALX because their duration is too long for me, and I already have a couple of Fido stock pickers in FMILX and FDSVX.
It's 44% stocks, 47% fixed income. And 8.25% cash, but almost 5% short. And it's overweight in materials, compared to its Index. 10.5% in Materials.
My other Alloc. fund is PRWCX.
it seems fairly obvious how giroux can\will manage more funds.
the asset sleeves, in particular equity, will be mostly the same, differing a bit in weights.
sadly missing the unique opp to differ much more in mkt cap and foreign.
But my understanding is that the PRWCX and TCAF mandate is domestic. 1.87% foreign. I prefer domestic. That's enough foreign for me.
From a quick glance, there is a marked difference in allocation %age to HC sector
Build a M* portfolio with $10,000 worth of PRWCX and around $6,000 worth of TCAF. That is to account for the fact that only about 60% of PRWCX is in equity. So $6K of equity in this portfolio comes from PRWCX and $6K from TCAF.
Run X-ray and look at stock intersections.
There's an old saying: Give a man a fish ... If you want to know more about how these funds match up, go fish.
it is assumed that people realize the MF is not updated daily, and the overlap tool shows in order of combined weight, not in order of weight similarity.
that being said, i had to go all the way to ~30 on the list to find a stock not in both.
up to that point, the weight difference looked to be usually ~0.5%.
when you consider the NAV is ~30X different (w/ similar median mkt caps), and has the same managers, i stand by my view that these equity sleeves are pretty much being run the same. differences in weights are probably just timing and reporting lags.
and just to be very clear, these different vehicles w/giroux serve to provide a loose commitment to different levels of asset exposure, not explicitly to vary in how that asset is expressed.
Likewise, M* does not update etf holdings daily. The TCAF portfolio page says: "Holdings as of Sep 30, 2024". That's the same portfolio date as M* shows for PRWCX.