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.
By virtue of of its 44% equity allocation one could think this is “ moderately conservative “ allocation fund as it is classified. But with almost 33 % of its equity in tech it sounds like it’s chasing tech returns. Lots of mag 7. A wolf in sheep’s clothing?
larryB, 33% of equity sounds high at first. But as a % of Net Assets, Info TECH makes up 14% of the portfolio, followed by healthcare at 6.5%.
Makes it sound more palatable to me.
Portfolio $400.09 million Total Net Assets as of 12/31/2025 Domestic Bonds 51.36% Domestic Stock 41.64% Cash 4.42% Foreign Stock 1.24% Foreign Bonds 1.04% Convertibles 0.25% Preferred Stock 0.19% Options -0.13%
As a percentage of Total Net Assets As of 12/31/2025 Information Technology 13.78% Health Care 6.51% Financials 4.70% Utilities 4.06% Consumer Discretionary 4.01% Industrials & Business Services 3.79% Communication Services 3.70% Energy 1.50% Consumer Staples 0.83% Real Estate 0.25%
@JD_co. I know that. But relative to its moderately conservative competitors it’s grossly overweight tech. Which may make it great until it doesn’t. But for those who don’t look under the hood, they might not realize what they are investing in.
You bring up a good point. I recently researched allocation funds (primarily Global Moderate Allocation funds). I discovered two or three funds—I don't recall the specific funds—with fine mid-term and/or long-term performance along with several other good characteristics. These funds had six or all seven of the Magnificent 7 stocks within their top ten positions. The funds lacked the diversification that I was seeking and may be susceptible to sizable losses if markets turn sharply against the Magnificent 7.
no doubt its an allocation fund drawing on excellent work already being done elsewhere in TRP funds with more focus. the downside ? despite its small AUM, it cannot put money to work in better small prospects (i.e., smallcap equity) because there will be no research effort in the area arising from prwcx forced to play in largecaps.
Grossly overweight? Holding 14% as opposed to just under 10% isn't going to scare many folks off. "Moderately" conservative gives a little leeway on allocations. The SD of this fund seems ok thus far.
With a 36% turnover ratio, these allocations will not remain static.
Top 10 Holdings (12/31/2025) Data as of: 12/31/2025
Name % of Fund Microsoft 3.16% NVIDIA 3.10% Apple 3.08% Alphabet Class A 2.36% Amazon.com 2.14% Meta Platforms 1.34% JPMorgan Chase 1.00%
I paired PRCFX with INPAX for this "bucket", and INPAX has 9% Tech. It's fine.
@Observant1. That’s how I saw it too. I was interested in PRCFX for its pedigree and people but my interpretation was that it was taking more risk than I was comfortable with in this space.
I own both PRWCX and PRCFX. Mistake? I put money into PRCFX because it holds more bonds than stocks. Monthly dividends, too. On a daily basis, it seems to me to behave like a more tame PRWCX.
We track PRCFX since inception and it does confirmed @Crash’s conclusion. Also there is no diversification benefit from the Mag 7 stocks exposure.
As i have posted on this board previously, other asset classes including developed and emerging markets in both stocks and bonds offer more compelling values, while reducing risk. Increased oversea exposure paid off nicely in 2025 and we are grateful. We also learned not heavily invested in Mag 7 still worked out okay. There is nothing wrong holding dull value funds.
If Vanguard forecast is correct, US stock returns will be lower (3-5%) than those of historical averages while bonds are returning in comparable range to stocks. Not great but they are nevertheless positive. Fees and expense ratio will become even more important consideration.
As the world is changing rapidly, the political stability (not including their currencies) of many foreign countries have improved while US has worsen! As investors, we would like to invest where there is a better likelihood of “return on of my money, and not return of on my money”.
There is still opportunities to reallocate your funds. Diversified and inexpensive index funds would be a good starting point for stocks.
As the world is changing rapidly, the political stability (not including their currencies) of many foreign countries have improved while US has worsen! As investors, we would like to invest where there is a better likelihood of “return on my money, and not return of my money”.
There is still opportunities to reallocate your funds. Diversified and inexpensive index funds would be a good starting point for stocks.
****************************************************************** As investors, we would like to invest where there is a better likelihood of “return on my money, and not return of my money”.
Rings a bell! Our David Sherman (CrossingBridge) puts it the other way 'round: He runs his funds with the idea that return of capital is more important than return on capital; if the principal is diminished or lost entirely, the approach taken in order to make more money is worthless in that case. Every day, I sit and wish I could get into his funds without transaction fees at Schwab. ********* Anyhow: I'm into EWS now. Singapore. A very concentrated ETF. And as mentioned before, also Panama and P.R. But they both use the dollar. Is that true diversification? (Panamanian balboa = $1.00.) In any case, they're serving me well. (BLX and FBP). Schwab grants the former an A rating, and the latter a B rating. For a brief moment, it rose to an A, as well.
It's tempting, on this Sunday afternoon, to throw some money into a fund mentioned in the Precious metals thread: GRHAX.
@crash, i made a mistake on my statement above (correction made). Capital preservation is #1 objective. BTW, i invest with D. Sherman funds as they have done well and minimize the risk. At Fidelity, they charge $49.95 for initial purchase. Additional purchases can be done for $5. Schwab has similar fee schedule. I use this approach to build a large position over.a year or so. Institutional shares of OEFs have lower expense ratio that pay for the transaction fee itself. I hold RSIIX for over 5 years.
Single country ETFs are inherently volatile due to the lack of sector and company diversification. If the top 10 holdings are over 50%, the fund is very concentrated. Panama is in frontier market i believe. The other thing to watch out for is the small daily trading volume (getting narrow spread between bid and ask prices). I prefer broadly diversified OEFs and ETFs (typical daily trading volume at 100K to several millions shares).
@Derf, we don’t own any PRCFX since we have PRWCX. For last several years, we have been reducing PRWCX as part of our risk reduction. US and foreign bonds are more attractive at this point.
Quite honestly i am not qualified to advise you on the amount of risk you should assume. Think a financial advisor may serve you better.
@Derf PRFCX is not precisely a clone of the equity sleeve in PRWCX. There's surely enough similarity to think of them in the same ballpark. (But I'm looking at the portfolios dated 30 Nov, '25 at Morningstar.) You're 5 years ahead of me, not that it matters at this stage.
I've been in PRWCX since 2014 and can't imagine giving it up. 2025 was its worst performance year, ever: 55th percentile among peers. I note a curious item listed in the PRCFX portfolio: an aggregate of a pile of different stuff, and as of 30 Nov, its size jumped by 2,225.99%. There must be a record somewhere of just which stocks are in that big un-labeled bag, eh? I suppose it's an indication that the size of the AUM has grown substantially.
I was attracted to PRCFX by its lead Portf. Mngr. and its YIELD. A rather hefty yield compared to most other balanced funds. I'm able to add new money to my portfolio just in dribs and drabs these days; a heftier yield which pays monthly makes growing my total easier, because it all gets reinvested, apart from the slug I remove each January. PRCFX is 13.43% of my total. I'm letting it ride. In a couple of years, I'll run into RMDs. The size of my taxable account will be growing quicker, then. I plan to move the lion's share of the RMDs just over there on the other side of the wall.
@Derf - you asked "This thread leads me to ask, what % of PRCFX should a 76 year old retired gent hold? Better yet what % of PRCFX do you hold?"
I can't answer your first question because we all do what seems and feels right to us. I can tell you that this 76-yr old investor holds a 2% position in his Roth, reinvests all dividends and adds on dips. As I sell off certain equity holdings in my Roth, I expect some of those funds will be added to PRCFX. Hard to argue with last year's TR and Giroux's long term record. I don't try to second guess his equity selections.
Morningstar has a list of The Best Balanced Funds and ETFs - Jan 2026
Gold T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation TRAIX American Funds Moderate Growth & Income RBAFX T. Rowe Price Balanced RBAIX Vanguard Wellington VWELX
Silver T. Rowe Price Spectrum Moderate Allocation TRPBX Vanguard Balanced Index VBINX American Funds American Balanced AMBFX Capital Group Core Balanced ETF CGBL
Looks like all funds here have about 60% equity and most of top rated funds have about 25-30% of that in tech stocks. So about 13-17% of total, similar to PRCFX.
Both PRWCX (M* moderate) and PRCFX (M* moderate-conservative) have "capital appreciation" prominent in their names. So, expect them to be more aggressive within their M* categories for their equity and fixed income sleeves. "Other" can be derivatives, convertibles, preferreds, alternatives, even cash within Holdings.
My simulation for them is through TCAF & PYLD. I don't have access to PRWCX and didn't bother with PRCFX.
FWIW, there seems to be little rhyme or reason for the share class selections made. M* says only that it picked the share class of a fund with the highest "medal" rating. But in the case of a tie, it sometimes gave the least expensive, most exclusive class (e.g. DOXBX, FBAVX), sometimes the most expensive share class (e.g. VBINX), and sometimes something in between, like AMBFX and RBAFX.
Its presentation of Vanguard funds is particularly curious. For Vanguard Balanced, it gives the (highest cost) Investor share class VBINX which is unavailable to all but funds of funds. Admiral shares VBIAX are the current retail share class. And there's an even cheaper institutional share class VBAIX.
Further, left off the list is silver-rated VTMFX. Though it has only a $10K min, M* calls these Admiral shares "institutional".
Non-Vanguard funds left off the list (all 100% analyst covered) include:
RVRPX and FIEWX - two gold-rated share classes of same fund, same ER & performance
Fidelity seems to have cloned some funds creating both class K shares (old) and K6 funds (new) FBKFX - bronze; a different fund from FBAVX / FBAKX FPKFX - bronze; a different fund from the familiar Fidelity Puritan FPURX (neutral) / FPUKX (bronze)
JCAVX - silver; a clone of PRWCX ITCSX - silver; a clone of PRWCX
FIFAX - silver; perhaps excluded because the Income Fund of America is income-oriented GBFFX - bronze; perhaps excluded because of its high TTM yield (5%+)
I was never a fan of M*'s "list of funds" columns because it seemed they did little but give the results of a screen adding little insight about the funds. At least they used to describe the screen used (including a link to the premium screener) so that one could reproduce their results. No longer. And their requirement of 100% analyst coverage belies their professed faith in their AI analyses. (Still, M* has its uses.)
I appreciate the numbers that @equalizer provided for these funds. Recognize that these are snapshots in time. Allocation (as opposed to balanced) funds typically vary their asset allocations. So much so that over time they may change categories, though that doesn't happen often. M*'s classifications of these funds as moderate allocation represents a view over time as contrasted with a snapshot. Just something to keep in mind, especially at a time when markets seem to be shifting - toward global, away from tech. https://www.morningstar.com/markets/is-stock-market-rotation-underway-these-sectors-are-outpacing-tech-2026
@Observant1 - I went through a similar exercise a year or so ago looking for global stock funds w/o much Mag7. Not easy to find.
FPACX might work. Many people seem fond of it. And it holds only three of the Mag7 - Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon. Those constitute "only" about 20% of the total equity in the fund (10% / 50%). Excellent returns and a moderate max drawdown (-21%). But its ER is over 1% and it was holding (as of Sept) 40% in cash.
FEBIX might also work. It doesn't seem to hold any Mag7. Very good returns and a "low" max drawdown of 16%. It is way underweight in tech and way overweight in consumer defensive. And it holds 9% in gold - I'm not a fan of that but many others are. Biggest question mark may be recent manager/analyst turnover.
I just took a very quick look at a few of the funds to see if anything jumped out at me. Nothing did.
PMAIX is a very boring global allocation fund and of the Seven, only has Amazon in the top 25 equities owned. It is one of a very few allocation funds to come out of 2022 in the green. @LynnBolin may own it. I'm pretty sure he has talked about it in his columns. I added it to my IRA recently.
Another option is the Wellington Managed Vanguard Global Wellesley. Vgwix. Using data from Portfolio Visualizer it outperformed PRCFX 13.19% CAGR to 11.85% Since 1/1/25 . Its stock have a PE of 17.27 compared to PRCFX at 27.74 . It has a SD of 2.69 vs 4.14 for PRCFX. IT’s equity is 22.7 international vs 1.13 for PRCFX. At my age I am invested for now. Just another option.
I noticed they are using Institutional share class tickers, some time ago. Their focus have deliberately shifted more to "serving" Agents and Brokers rather than retail investors.
Curious that while M* uses TRAIX rather than PRWCX, it uses TRPBX instead of TPPAX.
It gets even weirder with Vanguard funds. M* lists VBINX which cannot be purchased by agents, brokers, or DIY investors. When Vanguard lowered the mins on the Admiral class shares of its index funds to $3K, it closed its Investor class shares to most sales channels.
As I wrote above, there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason as to which share class M* chose to present for the funds. Except that if the cheaper (higher min) share class had a higher "medal" rating than a retail share class, it had to show the cheaper share class.
[snip] @Observant1 - I went through a similar exercise a year or so ago looking for global stock funds w/o much Mag7. Not easy to find.
FPACX might work. Many people seem fond of it. And it holds only three of the Mag7 - Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon. Those constitute "only" about 20% of the total equity in the fund (10% / 50%). Excellent returns and a moderate max drawdown (-21%). But its ER is over 1% and it was holding (as of Sept) 40% in cash.
FEBIX might also work. It doesn't seem to hold any Mag7. Very good returns and a "low" max drawdown of 16%. It is way underweight in tech and way overweight in consumer defensive. And it holds 9% in gold - I'm not a fan of that but many others are. Biggest question mark may be recent manager/analyst turnover.
I just took a very quick look at a few of the funds to see if anything jumped out at me. Nothing did.
Thanks for the info. The account where this fund will be held is at Fidelity. The following four funds were under consideration after the initial screening process. M* places these funds in the "Global Moderate Allocation" category except for SGENX which it classifies as "Global Moderately Aggressive Allocation."
SGENX - NTF, load-waived, 1.10% er
SGENX gained 31.57% in 2025 vs. "only" 17.66% for FPACX. SGENX allocated 11.0% of its portfolio towards gold bullion as of 09-30-25. Gold gained ~67% in 2025 which was its best performance since 1979.
On Dec. 11, 2025, First Eagle announced it would acquire Diamond Hill by the third quarter of 2026. PE firm Genstar Capital acquired First Eagle from Blackstone, Corsair, and their co-investors in August 2025.
FPACX - $49.95 TF, 1.06% er
Top-decile category returns for the trailing 3Y, 5Y, 10Y, and 15Y periods. Three long-tenured portfolio managers have invested over $1M each in the fund.
IFAFX - NTF, 0.63% er
Top-decile category returns for the trailing 5Y, 10Y, and 15Y periods. There are ten portfolio managers total with four managers that have more than 10 years of tenure. Eight managers have invested over $1M each in the fund.
VGWLX - $100.00 TF, 0.43% er
Top-quintile category returns for the trailing 5Y period (11/02/17 inception date). Sub-advised by Wellington Management. One portfolio manager has invested over $1M in the fund while the other manager has invested over $500K. I asked Fidelity if the TF could be waived or reduced but was informed that this was not possible.
FPACX vs. AMECX (IFAFX info was inaccurate) FPACX had higher CAGR, Sharpe, and Sortino ratios with lower volatility and max. drawdown. https://testfol.io/?s=keoymL8x3O8
You could look into buying FPFRX (NTF) and asking Fidelity to convert the shares (no fee) to FPACX. I've had some luck doing something similar with a couple of other funds. But then the cheaper shares had a higher min, so I had an excuse for buying one class and later doing a conversion. Here, the two share classes have the same $2500 min.
Also, it is up to the discretion of the fund company to allow a conversion. I've had one conversion request refused (by a different fund company). From the fund's prospectus:
You may be eligible for share conversion between the Institutional Class or Investor Class shares of the Fund, subject to the discretion of the Fund to permit or reject such a conversion.
I'm sure you know that additional purchases can be made (using automatic investments) for $5.
Comments
Makes it sound more palatable to me.
Portfolio
$400.09 million
Total Net Assets as of 12/31/2025
Domestic Bonds 51.36%
Domestic Stock 41.64%
Cash 4.42%
Foreign Stock 1.24%
Foreign Bonds 1.04%
Convertibles 0.25%
Preferred Stock 0.19%
Options -0.13%
As a percentage of Total Net Assets
As of 12/31/2025
Information Technology 13.78%
Health Care 6.51%
Financials 4.70%
Utilities 4.06%
Consumer Discretionary 4.01%
Industrials & Business Services 3.79%
Communication Services 3.70%
Energy 1.50%
Consumer Staples 0.83%
Real Estate 0.25%
I recently researched allocation funds (primarily Global Moderate Allocation funds).
I discovered two or three funds—I don't recall the specific funds—with fine mid-term
and/or long-term performance along with several other good characteristics.
These funds had six or all seven of the Magnificent 7 stocks within their top ten positions.
The funds lacked the diversification that I was seeking and may be susceptible
to sizable losses if markets turn sharply against the Magnificent 7.
no doubt its an allocation fund drawing on excellent work already being done elsewhere in TRP funds with more focus. the downside ?
despite its small AUM, it cannot put money to work in better small prospects (i.e., smallcap equity) because there will be no research effort in the area arising from prwcx forced to play in largecaps.
With a 36% turnover ratio, these allocations will not remain static.
Top 10 Holdings (12/31/2025)
Data as of:
12/31/2025
Name % of Fund
Microsoft 3.16%
NVIDIA 3.10%
Apple 3.08%
Alphabet Class A 2.36%
Amazon.com 2.14%
Meta Platforms 1.34%
JPMorgan Chase 1.00%
I paired PRCFX with INPAX for this "bucket", and INPAX has 9% Tech. It's fine.
As i have posted on this board previously, other asset classes including developed and emerging markets in both stocks and bonds offer more compelling values, while reducing risk. Increased oversea exposure paid off nicely in 2025 and we are grateful. We also learned not heavily invested in Mag 7 still worked out okay. There is nothing wrong holding dull value funds.
If Vanguard forecast is correct, US stock returns will be lower (3-5%) than those of historical averages while bonds are returning in comparable range to stocks. Not great but they are nevertheless positive. Fees and expense ratio will become even more important consideration.
onof my money, and not returnofon my money”.There is still opportunities to reallocate your funds. Diversified and inexpensive index funds would be a good starting point for stocks.
As investors, we would like to invest where there is a better likelihood of “return on my money, and not return of my money”.
Rings a bell! Our David Sherman (CrossingBridge) puts it the other way 'round: He runs his funds with the idea that return of capital is more important than return on capital; if the principal is diminished or lost entirely, the approach taken in order to make more money is worthless in that case. Every day, I sit and wish I could get into his funds without transaction fees at Schwab.
*********
Anyhow: I'm into EWS now. Singapore. A very concentrated ETF. And as mentioned before, also Panama and P.R. But they both use the dollar. Is that true diversification? (Panamanian balboa = $1.00.) In any case, they're serving me well. (BLX and FBP). Schwab grants the former an A rating, and the latter a B rating. For a brief moment, it rose to an A, as well.
It's tempting, on this Sunday afternoon, to throw some money into a fund mentioned in the Precious metals thread: GRHAX.
Single country ETFs are inherently volatile due to the lack of sector and company diversification. If the top 10 holdings are over 50%, the fund is very concentrated. Panama is in frontier market i believe. The other thing to watch out for is the small daily trading volume (getting narrow spread between bid and ask prices). I prefer broadly diversified OEFs and ETFs (typical daily trading volume at 100K to several millions shares).
@Derf, we don’t own any PRCFX since we have PRWCX. For last several years, we have been reducing PRWCX as part of our risk reduction. US and foreign bonds are more attractive at this point.
Quite honestly i am not qualified to advise you on the amount of risk you should assume. Think a financial advisor may serve you better.
PRFCX is not precisely a clone of the equity sleeve in PRWCX. There's surely enough similarity to think of them in the same ballpark. (But I'm looking at the portfolios dated 30 Nov, '25 at Morningstar.) You're 5 years ahead of me, not that it matters at this stage.
I've been in PRWCX since 2014 and can't imagine giving it up. 2025 was its worst performance year, ever: 55th percentile among peers. I note a curious item listed in the PRCFX portfolio: an aggregate of a pile of different stuff, and as of 30 Nov, its size jumped by 2,225.99%. There must be a record somewhere of just which stocks are in that big un-labeled bag, eh? I suppose it's an indication that the size of the AUM has grown substantially.
I was attracted to PRCFX by its lead Portf. Mngr. and its YIELD. A rather hefty yield compared to most other balanced funds. I'm able to add new money to my portfolio just in dribs and drabs these days; a heftier yield which pays monthly makes growing my total easier, because it all gets reinvested, apart from the slug I remove each January. PRCFX is 13.43% of my total. I'm letting it ride. In a couple of years, I'll run into RMDs. The size of my taxable account will be growing quicker, then. I plan to move the lion's share of the RMDs just over there on the other side of the wall.
I can't answer your first question because we all do what seems and feels right to us. I can tell you that this 76-yr old investor holds a 2% position in his Roth, reinvests all dividends and adds on dips. As I sell off certain equity holdings in my Roth, I expect some of those funds will be added to PRCFX. Hard to argue with last year's TR and Giroux's long term record. I don't try to second guess his equity selections.
Gold
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation TRAIX
American Funds Moderate Growth & Income RBAFX
T. Rowe Price Balanced RBAIX
Vanguard Wellington VWELX
Silver
T. Rowe Price Spectrum Moderate Allocation TRPBX
Vanguard Balanced Index VBINX
American Funds American Balanced AMBFX
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF CGBL
Bronze
BlackRock Balanced MKCPX
JHancock Balanced SVBIX
Dodge & Cox Balanced DOXBX
MFS Total Return MTRIX
Fidelity Advisor FBAVX
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/best-balanced-funds
Gold
Symbol % Stock % Bond % Cash
TRAIX ~60-65% ~30-35% ~5%
RBAFX 68% 28% 4%
RBAIX ~65% ~35% <1%
VWELX 65% 34% 1%
Silver
Symbol % Stock % Bond % Cash
TRPBX 59% 28% 7%
VBINX 60% 40% 0%
AMBFX 66% 31% 3%
CGBL 63% 33% 4%
Bronze
Symbol % Stock % Bond % Cash
MKCPX ~60% ~40% <1%
SVBIX 57% 42% 1%
DOXBX 66% 32% 2%
MTRIX ~60% ~40% <1%
FBAVX 65% 35% 0%
Ticker % Tech (of Stock)
TRAIX ~37%
VWELX ~34%
RBAIX ~25%
RBAFX ~22%
Silver
Ticker % Tech (of Stock)
AMBFX ~31%
VBINX ~31%
CGBL ~28%
TRPBX ~25%
Bronze
Ticker % Tech (of Stock)
SVBIX ~28%
MKCPX ~26%
FBAVX ~22%
MTRIX ~14%
DOXBX ~8%
Looks like all funds here have about 60% equity and most of top rated funds have about 25-30% of that in tech stocks.
So about 13-17% of total, similar to PRCFX.
My simulation for them is through TCAF & PYLD. I don't have access to PRWCX and didn't bother with PRCFX.
Thanks for replies.
Its presentation of Vanguard funds is particularly curious. For Vanguard Balanced, it gives the (highest cost) Investor share class VBINX which is unavailable to all but funds of funds. Admiral shares VBIAX are the current retail share class. And there's an even cheaper institutional share class VBAIX.
Further, left off the list is silver-rated VTMFX. Though it has only a $10K min, M* calls these Admiral shares "institutional".
Non-Vanguard funds left off the list (all 100% analyst covered) include:
RVRPX and FIEWX - two gold-rated share classes of same fund, same ER & performance
Fidelity seems to have cloned some funds creating both class K shares (old) and K6 funds (new)
FBKFX - bronze; a different fund from FBAVX / FBAKX
FPKFX - bronze; a different fund from the familiar Fidelity Puritan FPURX (neutral) / FPUKX (bronze)
JCAVX - silver; a clone of PRWCX
ITCSX - silver; a clone of PRWCX
FIFAX - silver; perhaps excluded because the Income Fund of America is income-oriented
GBFFX - bronze; perhaps excluded because of its high TTM yield (5%+)
I was never a fan of M*'s "list of funds" columns because it seemed they did little but give the results of a screen adding little insight about the funds. At least they used to describe the screen used (including a link to the premium screener) so that one could reproduce their results. No longer. And their requirement of 100% analyst coverage belies their professed faith in their AI analyses. (Still, M* has its uses.)
I appreciate the numbers that @equalizer provided for these funds. Recognize that these are snapshots in time. Allocation (as opposed to balanced) funds typically vary their asset allocations. So much so that over time they may change categories, though that doesn't happen often. M*'s classifications of these funds as moderate allocation represents a view over time as contrasted with a snapshot. Just something to keep in mind, especially at a time when markets seem to be shifting - toward global, away from tech.
https://www.morningstar.com/markets/is-stock-market-rotation-underway-these-sectors-are-outpacing-tech-2026
@Observant1 - I went through a similar exercise a year or so ago looking for global stock funds w/o much Mag7. Not easy to find.
FPACX might work. Many people seem fond of it. And it holds only three of the Mag7 - Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon. Those constitute "only" about 20% of the total equity in the fund (10% / 50%). Excellent returns and a moderate max drawdown (-21%). But its ER is over 1% and it was holding (as of Sept) 40% in cash.
FEBIX might also work. It doesn't seem to hold any Mag7. Very good returns and a "low" max drawdown of 16%. It is way underweight in tech and way overweight in consumer defensive. And it holds 9% in gold - I'm not a fan of that but many others are. Biggest question mark may be recent manager/analyst turnover.
I just took a very quick look at a few of the funds to see if anything jumped out at me. Nothing did.
It gets even weirder with Vanguard funds. M* lists VBINX which cannot be purchased by agents, brokers, or DIY investors. When Vanguard lowered the mins on the Admiral class shares of its index funds to $3K, it closed its Investor class shares to most sales channels.
As I wrote above, there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason as to which share class M* chose to present for the funds. Except that if the cheaper (higher min) share class had a higher "medal" rating than a retail share class, it had to show the cheaper share class.
The account where this fund will be held is at Fidelity.
The following four funds were under consideration after the initial screening process.
M* places these funds in the "Global Moderate Allocation" category
except for SGENX which it classifies as "Global Moderately Aggressive Allocation."
SGENX - NTF, load-waived, 1.10% er
SGENX gained 31.57% in 2025 vs. "only" 17.66% for FPACX.
SGENX allocated 11.0% of its portfolio towards gold bullion as of 09-30-25.
Gold gained ~67% in 2025 which was its best performance since 1979.
On Dec. 11, 2025, First Eagle announced it would acquire Diamond Hill by the third quarter of 2026.
PE firm Genstar Capital acquired First Eagle from Blackstone, Corsair, and their co-investors in August 2025.
FPACX - $49.95 TF, 1.06% er
Top-decile category returns for the trailing 3Y, 5Y, 10Y, and 15Y periods.
Three long-tenured portfolio managers have invested over $1M each in the fund.
IFAFX - NTF, 0.63% er
Top-decile category returns for the trailing 5Y, 10Y, and 15Y periods.
There are ten portfolio managers total with four managers that have more than 10 years of tenure.
Eight managers have invested over $1M each in the fund.
VGWLX - $100.00 TF, 0.43% er
Top-quintile category returns for the trailing 5Y period (11/02/17 inception date).
Sub-advised by Wellington Management.
One portfolio manager has invested over $1M in the fund while the other manager has invested over $500K.
I asked Fidelity if the TF could be waived or reduced but was informed that this was not possible.
IFAFX vs. SGENX vs. FPACX
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=26yMudA0dEmABdTOAvcl8F
FPACX vs. AMECX (IFAFX info was inaccurate)
FPACX had higher CAGR, Sharpe, and Sortino ratios with lower volatility and max. drawdown.
https://testfol.io/?s=keoymL8x3O8
My top choices are FPACX and IFAFX.
You could look into buying FPFRX (NTF) and asking Fidelity to convert the shares (no fee) to FPACX. I've had some luck doing something similar with a couple of other funds. But then the cheaper shares had a higher min, so I had an excuse for buying one class and later doing a conversion. Here, the two share classes have the same $2500 min.
Also, it is up to the discretion of the fund company to allow a conversion. I've had one conversion request refused (by a different fund company). From the fund's prospectus: I'm sure you know that additional purchases can be made (using automatic investments) for $5.
Romick has really done something over his decades, and the complaint about his cash levels has been similarly steady