I do understand @BaluBalu’s point that the fund is lagging peers this year. And, like him, I try to stay broadly diversified across asset classes. Still, that +3.63% YTD would translate into something close to a 10-11% annual return if it continues. Not too shoddy - especially following last year’s +18.8%.
Looks like the fund has some high fliers in its equity portfolio, including Microsoft. So I’d look to the 32% in bonds for clues to any underperformance. Do its peers hold that high a percentage? Would depend on duration. But most bonds have been hammered this year - even at the relatively short end. There was some turn-around late last week, and bonds are looking good in the overnight trading with the 10-year currently near 4.5% after topping out around 4.7% before Powell’s press conference..
Folks know I’m agnostic on Mr. Giroux’s fund. But cannot dispute the performance and well deserved M* gold rating. I hope the fact I don’t own the fund doesn’t exclude my participation. I did own it for over 20 years,
Interesting thread.

After years of delay, Boeing to try again with Starliner space capsule
An excerpt from The Washington Post:

Before a door-size panel blew out of a Boeing 737 Max, leaving a gaping hole in the side of an Alaska Airlines aircraft shortly after takeoff; before whistleblowers came forward to say they were threatened for bringing up safety issues at the company; and before the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the blowout incident, Boeing was struggling with another set of issues, on another high-profile vehicle.
Its Starliner spacecraft, designed to fly astronauts to orbit under a $4.2 billion contract from NASA, had suffered a series of problems that put its launch with astronauts years behind schedule. Its onboard computer had failed during its first test flight. A second test flight was scrubbed after valves in the vehicle’s service module stuck and wouldn’t operate. Then, after the craft finally flew a test mission successfully without anyone on board, Boeing discovered that tape used as insulation on wiring inside the capsule was flammable and would need to be removed. The parachute system also had problems, which forced the company to redesign and strengthen a link between the parachutes and the spacecraft.
Now, a decade after NASA awarded Boeing a contract to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, Boeing will finally attempt to fly its Starliner spacecraft with people onboard. If all goes to plan, at 10:34 p.m. on Monday, the company is set to fly a pair of veteran astronauts, Sunita Williams and Barry “Butch” Wilmore, on a mission that will be one of the most significant tests for Boeing’s space division — and for NASA — in years.
The flight is intended to see how the spacecraft performs in space with a crew onboard. If all goes well, the spacecraft will catch up with the space station — which travels at 17,500 mph — about a day after lifting off. Along the way, the crew members will test manually flying the spacecraft before it docks autonomously with the station. NASA and Boeing will also be eager to see how the spacecraft’s heat shield and parachutes work as it brings Williams and Wilmore back to Earth after about eight days.
NASA officials express confidence in Boeing and say the company has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the mission will be successful. They are eager to have another spacecraft, in addition to the one SpaceX flies, that can ferry astronauts to the station. “I can say with confidence that the teams have absolutely done their due diligence,” James Free, NASA’s associate administrator, said at a briefing last week.

I hesitate to engage with this tread in light of the poster’s negative experience at Vanguard. Like all brokerages, their unique fee schedules continue to evolve. Apparently this change at Vanguard strikes a nerve with many investors.
With that said, we have invested with Vanguard for over 30 years for our retirement and college 529 plans. And now, we use Vanguard’s advisory service. For Flagship customers, there is a special phone number that speeds up the connection. At the same time, we have equally size of asset at Fidelity and the combination of the two provide the best of both world, at least for us.

The fund has received the most inflows in the last 12 months than during any other 12 month period in the last 10 years.

I hate hearing that, but I suppose opening up that institutional ticker, TRAIX, added to the inflows. I wish they didn't do that.
@Roy posted this prospectus/ manager commentary in a post early in the year. Some of the favorites listed have not come through so far, but the year is young.
Personally, I have close to a 18-20% of portfolio stake in PRWCX and I added another 10% to PRCFX, so I'm heavily indebted to David G. To be honest, the slow YTD numbers do not concern me.
https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/summary.asp?
From Roy's post early in the year.
Giroux discusses AI and utilities.
Sees value in:
1) GARP stocks.
2) Utilities
3) High quality high yield and loans.
4) Software.
5) Healthcare.
6) Energy. (Unusual for the fund)
Does not see value in:
1) Growth & tech that does not benefit from AI.
2) Staples. He REALLY dislikes staples.

I track a few Mod Allocation funds, though I am mostly in PRWCX. Of these funds, PRWCX has underperformed all of them YTD, which is unusual. According to M* performance page, YTD it is 39 percentile which is the lowest in 10 years. The fund has received the most inflows in the last 12 months than during any other 12 month period in the last 10 years. The PM was out promoting his other new fund launches during this past year, and that may have resulted in PRWCX inflows too.
How has the fund been positioned YTD (causing it to underperform relative to its own history)?
(I ask this to see if I want to adjust my other allocations so I compensate for what PRWCX is doing to my portfolio, provided my conviction is different from the PM's relative to his allocation decreases and increases or if he is overallocated to something. He may decrease allocation to a position if it has grown to be too big but his conviction on that may not changed. So, not all his changes are an indication of his change in conviction.)
Thanks for your thoughts on PRWCX positioning.

Mona, I am somewhat confused by your description of the situation. However, I will offer an explanation of how I handled a situation that might be comparable. I have Rollover IRA and Roth IRA accounts with Fidelity. My Roth IRA was originally with TR Price until I transferred it to Fidelity a few years ago, but it still has a number of TRP funds. My TRP foreign fund had performed poorly and I wanted to replace it with a fund from a family with better options. I sold it and bought FIVFX with some of the proceeds.
I also owned ARTKX in my Rollover IRA, and its performance has been excellent. So I converted a portion of the ARTKX shares in my Rollover account to my ROTH account. Once the conversion was complete, I was able to buy more shares of ARTKX in my Roth IRA. So, I was able to upgrade my foreign holdings in my Roth IRA while also increasing my overall holdings in ARTKX.
I did a similar thing with the balanced fund (TRPBX) in my Roth IRA because its performance had been declining for a while. I converted a portion of the FBALX shares in my Rollover account to my Roth account. Then I sold all of the share's in TRPBX and bought more FBALX in my Roth. Since TRP would not let me buy PRWCX, I also bought shares in TCAF and PRCFX.
Long story short, I did a series of conversions from my Rollover IRA in order to add additional funds that I want in my Roth IRA.

Hopefully, I can explain the situation and my objective.
I have retirement accounts and non-retirement accounts at two institutions. I set this up because I did not want to have all at one institution plus I was able to purchase funds at one that I could not at the other. These dual objectives remain, but as I will explain, two funds are in focus. The below four accounts are all retirement accounts and being that I no longer have earned income, I can no longer contribute to a retirement plan.
Institution A
I am not certain where the names of these accounts came from.
I have a “Rollover Brokerage Account”. I have no problem selling any fund that is currently in this account - $460k current value.
I have a “Roth IRA Brokerage Account” (converted to a Roth many years ago). In this account, I own Artisan International Value (ARTKX) and T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRWCX) - $501k current value.
Institution B
I am not certain where the names of these accounts came from.
I have a “Rollover IRA Account”. I have no problem selling any fund that is currently in this account - $535k current value.
I have a “Roth Conversion Account” (converted to a Roth many years ago). In this account, I own Artisan International Value (ARTKX) - $176k current value.
As I recall, I have kept some of these fund separate (pure) mainly for asset protection (right or wrong). I believe that the “Rollover IRA Account” in Institution A came from an IRA. I believe the “Rollover Brokerage Account” in Institution B also came from an IRA. I now have an umbrella policy for which the coverage exceeds the value of all my retirement accounts.
My objective is to buy more ARTKX and PRWCX and I can't do this in my “Roth IRA Brokerage Account” at institution A or in my “Roth Conversion Account” in institution B. I could purchase all equity TCAF (which would be fine) without any maneuvering, but that does not address the problem with ARTKX. Either ARTKX or PRWCX can be purchased at A or B and a purchase fee is a non-factor.
I do not see an obvious solution. Combining both Roth accounts does not do anything for me other than allow me to allocate between ARTKX and PRWCX. Combining Traditional IRA's does not do anything for me because I do not own ARTKX or PRWCX in either. I have to check if either of the “Rollover” accounts in A and B are Roth accounts. If so, that would be an answer, but I doubt either are as they do not contain the word “Roth”. That seems to leave a Roth conversion in A or B, which I do not want as I am in a 24% marginal and 18% effective tax bracket, and to purchase a good amount of ARTKX or PRWCX, I would have to Roth an amount that would even put me in a higher tax bracket.
Am I boxed out of purchasing more ARTKX and PRWCX?

I received the notice about new fees in the post today. The $100 fee for closing an account is particularly puzzling. If someone has a non-Roth IRA when they reach a certain age they are required by law to take annual distributions. That's the R in RMD. After a number of years the Vanguard investor (or heirs) will have received all the money in the IRA account. Presumably the account will then be closed. But Vanguard is going to keep $100 of the final distribution for themselves? Can that be legal?
What about a non-retirement account? In the past I have redeemed all my shares in certain mutual funds (both Vanguard and not) and the account has remained open with no money in it. That has been the actual case at Vanguard for years for me. I never requested that the account be closed and so it wasn't. If I redeem all shares of a Vanguard fund that does have money invested in it and don't request that the account be closed I wonder if they will steal, er, I mean keep, $100 of my money. Why would anyone insist that an account be closed anyway? AND, they don't say that the fee will be charged. They say that it "may" be charged.

Glanced at Mark’s linked article. Didn’t take away much. But that’s Barron’s for you. Good at highlighting a number of different investment approaches and those who practice them to the point you get the sense you should buy one thing one week, sell it, and buy something else the next.
Personally, not into dividends per-se. As long as whatever I own goes up I’m happy.
Can’t help mentioning TRP’s PRFDX. When I began taking an active role in investing in the mid-90s it was considered possibly the best fund for everyday investors in Price’s much smaller stable. Brian Rogers, the manager in the 90s and beyond was a household name and was often a guest on Wall Street Week. Performance suffered for a few years after Rogers left. PRFDX’s younger brethren PRWCX took its place as perhaps the most touted TRP fund. (And David Gerioux became a household name.) But it looks like PRFDX has rebounded in recent years. And the +11.62% return going out 15 years is pretty impressive. Don’t own. Did for a while 25 years ago or so.

Well, I logged in to VG this morning and everything was back to normal. Thanks everyone for your replies.
In this mornings mail I received VGs amended Brokerage Account Agreement.
$25 commission for telephone trades.
$100 fee for account closure or transfer of account to another firm.
Plus several other changes and charges.
All effective June 1.
I'll have to study it more later.
I have been with VG for years. I wonder if other firms charge such fees?

That's another trick … Have you looked at ETFs of CEFs?

Yes, there anre some ETFs of CEF’s .
CCEF appears to be quite risk averse. If I had to recommend one, that would be it - just based on my experience in two other Calimos funds. But it is only a couple months old. Another which @yogibearbull has mentioned before is Boaz Weinstein’s CEFS which I recently sold. For my own purposes the closed end fund (of closed end funds) noted earlier works better.
Weinstein uses leverage on that one (CEFS) in addition to the leverage inside the CEFs it holds. (”Double your pleasure.”) He’s been very successful at his activist approach. He’s been on Blackrock’s tail recently trying to force them to convert at least one of their CEFs to an OEF and “unlock” shareholder value. He shorted treasuries in recent years which helped the fund greatly. His is a great fund based on past performance and Weinstein’s reputation. Just depends on what you need.
*The near 5% fee on CEFS is an eye-popper. But the actual management fee is around 1%, with the rest coming from acquired fund fees and interest on leverage,

@sma3 - I can't argue that about SCHD at all. All I was trying to say originally is that it wasn't paying enough to suit my goals for that type of investment.
When I set out on this path (i.e. dividend growth investor) I was looking for stocks that had a track record of consistent, long-term dividend growth with the opportunity for capital appreciation as a secondary objective. The funds I scoured (many) all seemed to be paying yields that one could easily increase (often substantially) by simply investing in their top-5 or 10 picks. TIBIX was the fund I was using back then but after a few years of doing as advertised, building their income, it stagnated and eventually came to a halt. I wasn't smart enough to figure out why that happened and I wasn't sure any similar fund wouldn't do exactly the same.
As also previously mentioned, I get that it's not everyones cup of tea. I'll also admit that holding my current choices may constrain the capital appreciation aspect but the income continues to increase which was my primary objective.

But it also used to be that a Private Client customer at Fidelity was assigned a specific rep. No more at either brokerage.

Fidelity still assigns you an individual Premier Services Advisor.
@msf did they also used to assign another kind of "specific rep" as well?

As a matter of fact, they've assigned a Private Access Account Executive, a Private Client Group Account Executive (same person, different title), a Senior Account Executive (same person), an Account Executive (same person), and a Financial Consultant (same person).
Then the musical chairs began. No title changes, but in the span of three years, three different "Financial Consultants". Then a year later, when the last one left Fidelity, I was not assigned any specific rep, whatever title you wish to give to them.

From May 1st market commentary by the Palm Valley Capital Fund (PVCMX) co-manager Eric Cinnamond.
Original blog post can be found here: https://www.palmvalleycapital.com/post/undateable
*****************************************************************************************************************************
Undateable
May 1, 2024
You can learn a lot about the financial markets by watching Seinfeld. In season 7 episode 114, Jerry and Elaine have a conversation about the lack of dating opportunities. Although they were talking about the percentage of people they consider dateable, by making some minor changes to the script, their conversation fits the current stock market perfectly.
Jerry: Elaine, what percentage of people [stocks] would you say are good looking [attractively priced]?
Elaine: 25%
Jerry: 25%? No way. It’s like 4% to 6%. It’s a 20 to 1 shot.
Elaine: You’re way off.
Jerry: Way off? Have you been to the motor vehicle bureau [screened through stocks]? It’s a leper colony down there [horrendous opportunity set].
Elaine: Basically, what you’re saying is 95% of the population [the stock market] is undateable [overvalued]?
Jerry: Undateable [overvalued]!
Elaine: Then how are all of these people getting together [why are all these people buying stocks]?
Jerry: Alcohol
As if our dating scene couldn’t get much worse, the S&P 600 soared 15% in the fourth quarter of 2023. Encouraged by the Federal Reserve’s year-end pivot, investors piled into stocks, attempting to front run the return of easy money.
At the time, we were baffled as to why the Fed was in such a rush to cut rates. For the most part, corporate earnings remained inflated. Financial conditions were already loosening, with equity valuations elevated and credit spreads tight. Home prices were also rising and remained out of reach for millions of Americans. And while the rate of inflation had declined, many of the items helping inflation moderate were plateauing, and in some cases, reversing. Further, accumulated inflation remained a serious problem, putting pressure on middle- and lower-income consumers and keeping inflation expectations elevated.
Unsurprisingly, by pivoting before the inflation battle was won, the Fed unleashed another round of asset inflation, bolstering demand and pricing power. Instead of declining back to the Fed’s 2% target, inflation bottomed and is on the rise again. To date, the Fed’s 2023 preemptive pivot is aging about as well as its “inflation is transitory” assurances in 2021.
Instead of declaring victory on inflation, we believe the Fed prematurely signaled rate cuts to head off building threats to asset prices and the economy. While there are many risks to defuse, we believe refinancing risk was, and remains, near the top of the Fed’s list of concerns. With each passing day, the amount of low-cost government and corporate debt nearing maturity grows.
Extremely low interest rates allowed the U.S. government to borrow aggressively, supporting massive fiscal deficits and artificially inflating economic growth. Corporations also benefited from elevated government spending and lower rates. Low-cost debt allowed companies to acquire, fund generous dividends, and turbocharge earnings per share (EPS) through buybacks and depressed interest expense.
As accumulated inflation continues to build, along with a seemingly endless supply of U.S. Treasuries, we believe the era of ultra-low interest rates has ended. With interest rates remaining higher for longer, a growing number of businesses are facing difficult refinancing decisions as their maturity walls approach. While some are pushing off the decision—hoping rates will decline—the market isn’t waiting and is beginning to sniff out companies that require funding over the next 1-2 years.
As we search through our opportunity set of small cap companies, many of the stocks that have performed poorly have bonds approaching maturity or have refinancing risk. For example, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store’s stock (symbol: CBRL) has fallen 45% over the past year and 61% from its 2021 high. Cracker Barrel operates restaurants that are typically located along interstate highways. We know their home-style country food well, as we hold Palm Valley’s annual founders meeting at a local Cracker Barrel (and yes, we all order from the value menu!).

Similar to many consumer companies that cater to the middle class, Cracker Barrel’s traffic growth has slowed and has recently turned negative. Accumulated inflation has placed stress on discretionary spending and many of the casual dining companies we follow. Management expects industry and traffic challenges to continue. Based on analyst estimates, adjusted EPS is expected to decline from $5.47 in fiscal 2023 (ending July 31) to $4.60/share in fiscal 2024.
Even as operating results have weakened, Cracker Barrel has remained committed to its generous quarterly dividend of $1.30/share. If maintained, the $5.20/share in annual dividends will exceed this year’s expected net income. The company has also been an active buyer of its stock, purchasing $184 million over the past three fiscal years (2021-2023). Combined, dividends and buybacks have consumed $447 million in cash over the past three years versus $461 million of free cash flow.
With practically all of Cracker Barrel’s free cash flow being consumed by dividends and buybacks, debt reduction doesn’t appear to be a priority. As of January 26, 2024, debt was $452 million. Based on 2024 estimated EBITDA of $242 million, debt to EBITDA is 1.87x, or slightly above the high-end of the company’s target range of 1.3x to 1.7x.
On June 18, 2021, Cracker Barrel opportunistically issued a $300 million convertible bond with a 0.625% coupon. At the time of issuance, its stock was trading at $150.51. With a conversion price of $188, the bonds had a conversion premium of 25%. Currently, Cracker Barrel’s stock is trading near $59; therefore, the odds of the bond converting to equity before maturity are low. With a maturity of June 15, 2026, refinancing will likely become an increasingly important issue for the company and investors.

Cracker Barrel has $511 million available on its $700 million credit facility that could be used to fund its convertible bond maturity. However, the weighted average interest rate on the credit facility is currently 6.96% versus the 0.625% coupon on the convertible bond. Assuming the credit facility is used to fund its bond maturity, at current rates, Cracker Barrel’s interest expense would increase $19 million, causing a meaningful hit to earnings. For reference, earnings before interest expense and taxes (EBIT) in 2023 were $120.6 million. Like many companies with debt, Cracker Barrel’s cost of borrowing has shifted from an earnings tailwind to headwind.
We classify Cracker Barrel as a cyclical business. To consider cyclical businesses for purchase, we require a debt to normalized free cash flow ratio of 3x or less. Based on our free cash flow estimate, Cracker Barrel currently has too much financial leverage for our absolute return strategy. Nevertheless, its substantially lower market capitalization has caught our attention, and we’ll monitor its balance sheet closely for potential deleveraging catalysts, such as a cut in its dividend or sale-leasebacks of owned properties.
The small cap dating scene remains unattractive, in our opinion. However, for many consumer discretionary companies with debt, equity prices have fallen sharply, and valuations have become more attractive. That said, these aren’t dream dates! Cyclical companies with debt often come with a lot of baggage and potential drama. Before committing and getting too serious, we recommend stress testing the balance sheet and cash flow by including periods with high unemployment and tightening credit conditions. And if alcohol is needed to stomach the risk, we suggest patience and waiting for a better match. When it comes to leveraged cyclicals, there are plenty of fish in the sea!
Eric Cinnamond
[email protected]

I just finished a look for best performing Dividend and Dividend growth funds and was surprised that VDIGX has not beaten many similar funds.
VIG pays a higher Dividend and is ahead for last few years, as is SCHD
PRDGX seems to be a better dividend growth fund as well

The way the markets have been behaving lately, I’d hate to predict how the day ends. But everything looks hot at the moment - including bonds as rates fall. Gold isn’t doing much. Hanging around $2300. Consolidating I think.
So the drop in interest rates is helping equities. There’s been a remarkable correlation between stocks & bonds this year ISTM. Some of today’s uptick is a delayed reaction to something Powell said at the news conference Wednesday about a rate hike being “unlikely” at the next meeting.
Edit: I think a more interesting question is why the economy has stayed hot despite all the Fed tightening & inverted curve? I suspect in large measure that’s $$ going into goods & services that’s been amassed by investors in good markets over many years. Especially - the boomers are spending down before it’s too late. Feel free to disagree. I can’t find anyone else who agrees with me.

"We had previously owned OAKMX for several years. Very good fund - not sure why we ever parted with it."
Possibly it had something to do with the WaMu debacle.

Cha-ching!

"We had previously owned OAKMX for several years. Very good fund - not sure why we ever parted with it."
Possibly it had something to do with the WaMu debacle.

I have a 74 year-old neighbor who has stargardt disease and is losing his vision. He barely can log into his Vanguard account (will not be able to in a year or so) and can't facilitate the handful of trades his does per year online. And now Vanguard is going to penalize him for his disability?

At almost 74, this has been going through my mind in recent years also, not for failing eyesight, but more for dementia and not being able to track and tweak things, as necessary, as I do now. So far so good. My niece will have POA when I lose it, but she doesn't know anything about investing/portfolio management.
The local Schwab guy cold-called me last week, just to see how I was doing. Hadn't had contact with him in over a year, as I normally don't have any reason to.
I asked him specifically about this potential problem. He said they have people there that will do it, plus they can recommend local independent financial firms who will do it. I knew they are out there, but who to trust? But if Schwabbie recommends them, they are more than likely going to be fine.
It was a relief to hear that.

I own only one - PRWAX. Does anyone here own OAKMX?

Yes, we currently own OAKMX, having exchanged VWNDX for it earlier this year. We had previously owned OAKMX for several years. Very good fund - not sure why we ever parted with it.
We also like you own PRWAX.