You know what else puts this fund into perspective? The fact that it is more than 5 years old and has only attracted $273 million in assets. Maybe most people, like me, see the folly in paying a 1.26 expense ratio for a fund that routinely holds so much cash.

It's easy because there are not many providers with great service unless they are very expensive.
1) After several decades with different discount brokers Schwab is #1 for me, and Fidelity is second and why I have accounts with both for many years.
2) Amazon has the best service, responds within seconds, and solves everything.
3) REI: the best camping/sport store with excellent knowledgeable employees and good prices.

MikeM " @FD1000, you seem to have an incredulous dislike for this manager and his fund."
FD: There is no dislike here. I used to like PIMIX and had over 50% in it for years, but 0% since 01/2018.
FAIRX: I owned it for about 8 years during 2000-10, and left it behind since then.
I only like funds that make money. If they don't I switch I don't care how M* defines it.
Remember, if Cinnamond is a great star why he hasn't managed the same fund for decades and increased the AUM to billions? Millions of investors have been looking for an edge and all missed it?
The above is just an opinion, you can do what you like, it's your money.
I already posted the goals from https://www.palmvalleycapital.com/goal
Investing for Risk defined as losing money.
Flexible mandate allows for patience (FD: that means, if we lag, don't blame us :-)
No sector constraints
Elevated career risk
Independent; unique
Fiduciary duty uninhibited

Are we limited to strictly financial dealings? I can recall a "beyond the call of duty" episode with airline staff, many years ago, at the airport...

He’s a bit of a fall guy for sins which have been going on for years even before he became chairman. Nice bit of jujitsu on his part to postpone the resignation until a successor is in place - Republicans were calling for his head so their guy would become acting chair and gum up the works. They didn’t really seem to care about the shenanigans when they were occurring during the previous administration.

I added to NAD and EVT in my taxable account...adding about 5% to each. Given their FI holdings, they will likely bump up when rates eventually recede along with 4.63% and 7.49% distribution respectively. In my IRA rollover I cashed out of RPMGX. 20 years ago I jumped through hoops to maintain this fund as I changed employer plans. I sold in order to gain additional fixed income exposure, currently sitting in SNVXX. I'm waiting for a pullback and then will initiate a new position in most likely an allocation fund...FMSDX and FPURX are in the mix at present.

@hondo
Wife 401k was at Fido and most of non retirement money at Schwab and Vanguard
I dislike using one brokerage for redundancy purposes
Schwab customer service has always been better than Fido although there is the irritating issue of no sweep account.
As Vanguard has deteriorated over the years I gradually moved our accounts out. Mine to Schwab and most of wife's to Fido.
If Schwab had a sweep account MMF I might dump Fido altogether but probably not. I think two different brokerages is worth the inconvenience

It’s fun to play around in this area for experienced investors. RIO is one of several I’ve played with in recent years. What I’ve learned is gambits like that need to be kept small because of the heightened risk. And in small scale they really don’t move a portfolio that much (but may contribute to heartburn). Applies to most stocks - not just the one cited.
Gold is rising and etf flows have picked up. May well go to the moon. But it will come back to earth and you don’t want to be holding a lot when it does. I bought gold coins in the 70s when the metal spiked to over $800 and it was all the talk of the town. I sold 3-4 years later at $400. It later got down to near $300.
I looked and looked for “value” in the commodities sector a couple months ago. Looked at OEFs, ETFs, CEFs. Some good funds. But none appeared undervalued. All had already been bid up. But - very likely there’s something out there I missed.

No consistent relationship has been found between point-to-point TR and safe-withdrawal-rates (SWR). Dave Ramsey recently fell into this trap.
Bengen-type withdrawals should be seen as benchmarks. Not many use them as described - 4% initial withdrawal with annual COLA. PV does have the capability of withdrawals with or without COLA.
Flexible withdrawal approaches are popular. I have my own - keep withdrawal amounts fixed for 5 years & then reevaluate the portfolio & reset the withdrawals. This can lead to 5-6% withdrawals that often keep rising (at 5-yr intervals).
I have another variation of SWR, called SWRM. It's the max withdrawal rate sustainable that also returns the inflation-adjusted principal at the end. Then, the withdrawal program can be restarted. Obviously, SWRM << SWR.

the distinction between cost method and lot selection
Exactly. Further, each - cost basis and lot selection - is a distinct legal (accounting) fiction. In reality shares owned are nothing but fungible writings in an electronic ledger. For the tax purpose of computing gain, the IRS offers two different methods of ascribing cost - average and actual. If there is no gain to be calculated for taxes (as is the case for tax-sheltered accounts), then there is no cost basis.
That doesn't preclude investors from thinking about how much money they made in buying and selling shares, regardless of whether they are taxed on cap gains. To facilitate this, brokerages often provide their own tax-sheltered "cost basis" calculations for investors to track gains in their minds. Though not on their 1040s.
To illustrate this dichotomy between tax purposes and investor perceptions, consider income averaging. Say you make $100K in a single year, but the IRS lets you average that income over five years. From your perspective, you made $100K up front; you've got $100K in your pocket. From the IRS perspective, you made $20K that year, and you'll make $20K over each of the next four years. Which is real, $100K all at once or $20K each of five years? You may say the former, since you've got $100K now, but if you're talking taxes, the $20K/year is the "real" interpretation.
Likewise, funds and brokerages have their own rules for calculating holding periods. These rules need not be consistent with each other or with tax rules.
Typically, funds (a) waive short term redemption fees on shares purchased via div reinvestment (including cap gain divs), and (b) apply the redemption fee (e.g. 2%) only to those shares sold within the short-term period as opposed to all shares sold in the transaction.
In contrast to (b), brokerages typically charge a flat short term trading fee if any of the shares sold are subject to the brokerage's short term fee. Fidelity, at least, explicitly waives fees on reinvested divs:

[Fidelity's short-term trading fee] does not apply to ... shares purchased through dividend reinvestment.

https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/Brokerage_Commissions_Fee_Schedule.pdf
Finally, to illustrate the difference that ordering rules make, consider the following transactions:
Jan 4 - purchase 100 shares
Nov 25 - purchase 100 shares
Dec 28 - div reinvest - purchase 10 shares
Jan 16 (next year) - sell 110 shares
On a strict FIFO basis, 10 shares (purchased Nov 25) will have been sold within 60 days of purchase. If for the purpose of calculating a short-term redemption fee, reinvested divs are deemed to have been sold first, then the 110 shares sold will be the 10 purchased on Jan 16 and the 100 purchased on Jan 4. No fee will be assessed (assuming no fee is charged for redeeming div reinvestment shares).

There's no cost basis accounting in tax-sheltered vehicles.

You might find the following relevant:
I have a long standing mutual fund holding in my IRA but in March I had some idle cash in the account and I added to that mutual fund, which is subject to a 2% redemption fees if sold within 90 days of purchase.
The fund prospectus says, "In determining whether a redemption fee is applicable to a particular redemption, it is assumed that the redemption is first of shares acquired pursuant to the reinvestment of dividends and capital gains distributions, and next of other shares held by the shareholder for the longest period of time."
I tried to sell shares I bought a few years ago.
Schwab Rep and supervisor are adamant that cost basis method in IRA controls for purpose of applying the 2% redemption fees. They say the March purchase taints the sale because average cost basis is used in that account and thus they have to apply the 2% redemption fees. (The strange part is, their reps are not trained and their system are not designed for their own literature, which correctly says, "Assets using the Average Cost Method will default to the FIFO Lot Selection Method when disposed." We already know the brokerages thoroughly confuse the distinction between cost method and lot selection. If they actually applied the FIFO lot selection as their literature says, there is no redemption fees in my case.)
The above issue is also there at Fidelity. We discussed this in the Fidelity Community in the past year - I go there very rarely these days but anyone active there probably can pull up that discussion. My memory is not good re Fidelity's exact process but they might even just apply average cost basis method (means test the last purchased shares to see if there is a taint) in applying the fund level redemption fees, not withstanding what the customer's selection is. Posters should pay attention to what Fidelity does or read that discussion in Fidelity Community where Fidelity employees participated.
It is interesting how these brokerages' own short term redemption fees ($50) is applied on a FIFO basis but these brokerages use some other method for purposes of applying the fund's redemption fees, irrespective of what the prospectus says. I guess it is easy for them to have a simpler punitive system, rather than customize for each fund. Most customers do not select a cost (or lot) method in retirement accounts and so they are defaulted to a average method. Something to be aware of.
While it is likely differences among funds exist, I have only seen funds apply FIFO.

Withdrawal Studies with Updated PV in 2 Steps
This 2-STEP trick will work with the updated PV. This month is 05/2024 (May), so the free PV will run without issue from 5/1/2014 - 4/30/2024 (the new 10-yr limit). But the PV will also run without limit for start and end dates prior to 5/1/14 (i.e. no limitations on older data beyond the recent 10-yr window; this was found by experimentation with the updated PV). So, the current month provides the unique break point (10 years ago) for these 2 steps.
In this demo, the PV run for Bengen-type 4% withdrawal with annual COLA will be from 1/1/1985 - 4/30/2024 (the maximum possible at PV) in 2 steps.
STEP 1, PV Run 1/1/1985 - 4/30/2014 (dates beyond recent 10 years)
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=3qDAqcuhRZT8zHPzoUQlPT
Initial Principal Amount $100,000, initial Monthly Withdrawal $333 (= 4,000/12 rounded).
A limitation of PV is that these inputs must be integers; to reduce the effect of rounding errors, $100,000 initial was used instead of the default $10,000. 3 funds used were VWELX, FPURX, DODBX and 1 benchmark used was VFINX.
STEP 2, PV Run 5/1/2014 - 4/30/2024 (recent 10 years), with VWELX only (asset % for FPURX and DODBX were cleared to avoid confusion). To start the 2nd PV run, use the VWELX balance and Monthly Withdrawal on 4/31/2014.
“Initial” Principal Amount $1,264,742, “initial” Monthly Withdrawal $745 (=$2,979/4 rounded; this is the payment for 4 months in 2014 divided by 4).
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=6Hbd9noxhDMxTtlIuqR4ns
On 4/30/2024, Final Balance $2,530,484, Monthly payment $978 (=$3,911/4 rounded; payment for 4 months in 2024 divided by 4).
Step 2 can be repeated for FPURX (Step 3), DODBX (Step 4), VFINX (Step 5).
This is more complicated and tricky than the old single-step PV runs. One can subscribe to PV to still have that capacity.
LINK

@yogibearbull, I follow. Hmmm
You can start and end before 2015... up to ten years
You can start and end after 2015... up to today's date (almost 10 years)
But you can not start before 2015 and end after 2015 without PV shortening your inputs dates.
Hopefully they'll be a fix coming.

@bee, now try to run 10 years to 2020, i.e. 2010-2020 (i.e. 1/1/2010-12/30/2020 under Year-to-year), but you can not. The result is truncated to 1/1/2015-12/31/2020 (well under 10 years). Then see my post just before yours - my guess is that your 10-year test periods were all pre-mid-2014 except the full 2014/2015-2024.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=1F7QzYmcVWRuBv5WmY6L5B

Playing around with the new version of PV and the Backtesting Asset Allocation Portfolio tool:
1. I first select "Custom Portfolio" and eliminate the four funds that are preloaded as the "Sample Portfolio".
2. I enter a single ticker for Asset 1 (I used PRWCX) for my purposes. Change this as you please.
3. I keep SPY as the Specified Benchmark ticker. Change this as you please.
4. I run "Analyze Portfolio".
5. I then select the "Link" option and copy this link to a location such as an email to myself or as a hyperlink in a spreadsheet file.
6. I now have my own personal link to PV backtesting and my personal "Sample Portfolio".
Here's my Link to my personal "Sample Portfolio" that I could further customize.
7. Eliminate or keep the Asset 1 as Portfolio 1, enter assets for Portfolios 2 & 3 as you have in the past.
My PV Sample Portfolio
note:
Changing setting to stress test your Portfolios
To Stress test Custom Portfolios, select individual 10 year periods. I have used 2002 - 2011 as one stressful investment period. To choose your 10 year period, click on the setting tab adjusting the start and end dates.
To stress test your portfolio further (say by taking annual withdrawals), I set my withdrawal amount by selecting the "Cashflow" options . I use 4% withdrawals as my annual withdrawal.
With only a 10 year look back period I segment my look backs into distinct time periods.
One of most stressful decades (10 years) to have started retirement would have been the start of the Tech bubble followed by the GFC say, 2002 - 2011.
I compare these withdrawal results to other 10 year time frames, including the last 10 years (2015- 2024).

It seems that PV runs for the RECENT YEARS can go back only 10 years from now (i.e. 5/1/2014 in Month-to-month and 1/1/2015 in Year-to-year in 05/2024), but longer than 10-year runs are possible for start and end dates before this 10-year window.
If so, that seems an odd way to implement the 10-yr restriction.
BTW, these issues (and loopholes, workarounds, tricks, etc) are for free PV only. The PV subscribers may have a different view of this update or streamlining. Unfortunately, there is free/$0, and then quite steep $360/yr and $660/yr. If there was a tier around $100/yr, I could consider subscribing. As a subscriber to M*, Stock Rover (SR) and MFO Premium already, I don't find additional value in PV to justify $360-660/yr, but it's good for what it does.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/pricing

@msf said, Bogle built a solid money management firm. Once he left, Vanguard dabbled in expanding financial products. For the most part, it hasn't done this well. While still dabbling it has often retreated to its core business. Sticking to one's knitting does not mean that one is placing the bottom line ahead of shareholder interests.
This is not to say that Vanguard shouldn't be spending more to support its huge number of investors. It can, and IMHO should, nudge people toward electronic trading and communication. But it also needs to improve its human communications as well. This is not a matter of shedding lines of business. This is a matter of providing decent service for its core businesses.

How true. When I started invest with Vanguard 30 years ago, their phone service is very good. Then the internet came and online investing began and that human touch decline. Flagship clients have a special phone number but few perks. We are reconsidering our earlier decision to stay put.

@Observant, new limitation is for 10 years. But you have to change both the start and end dates to capture the older 10-yr periods. Some periods > 10 years do slip by randomly, but I haven't figured out any pattern.
For example, these old 20-year periods ran,
5/1/1994 - 4/30/2014 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=5XAbTVqb4yt0BQuvbe9O3F
5/1/1990 - 4/30/2010 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=25WEYneHHRZLPu7sE6csqE

I searched for credit cards with good overall cash-back policies and minimal hassles.
I didn't want to play games with rotating categories, travel rewards, or some other BS.
Show me the money!
I found two good cash-back credit cards years ago (newest is >6 yrs. old).
I haven't had customer service problems with the corresponding card issuers
and plan to hold these cards long-term barring any unforseen circumstances.

@FD1000
Thanks. I’ve saved the link to penfed. Just wondered … Do they have 24-hour live phone support? Easy to call? How well do they treat clients who call with inquiries, issues, etc?
I don’t think the live support at Elan is as good as it was a few years ago. I had a Citibank MC up until about 2005. Not only was the support lacking, but back then they besieged you with promotions. Can’t remember the exact nature of these. But it was annoying to call in. There may have been some “hard-sell” tactics by the phone reps trying to sell you unwanted services. Can’t remember the details. But that was the main reason I moved to Elan.
I appreciate that many people are reaping profits in the form of cash back, bonuses, travel points, etc. Never been my goal. Just good service w/o pressure tactics is what I’ve always cared about. And, of course, I pay balance off at the end of each cycle.