MikeM - if the fund was investing in Blackstone the company it would declare BX as a holding. This particular position is an investment in one of Blackstone's proprietary black-box offerings, such as what a so-called 'sophisticated' or 'accredited' investor might throw money into. In other words, a totally different beast than just being a shareholder invested in Blackstone....which anyone could buy into on the open market.

@Crash, I believe there is a distinction about RPGAX investing in Blackstone Hedge Fund Solutions that I haven't heard on this thread yet. The TRP fund is not, I don't believe, investing in a "hedge fund". It is investing in a company that manages hedge funds. Blackstone is a financial company just like investing in Merrill Lynch or JP Morgan, isn't it? At least this is how I interpret that TRP fund holding.
How does this hedge fund company make money, just like any other financial institution, they charge their clients for money management.

@Crash, I believe there is a distinction about RPGAX investing in Blackstone Hedge Fund Solutions that I haven't heard on this thread yet. The TRP fund is not, I don't believe, investing in a "hedge fund". It is investing in a company that manages hedge funds. Blackstone is a financial company just like investing in Merrill Lynch or JP Morgan, isn't it? At least this is how I interpret that TRP fund holding.
How does this hedge fund company make money, just like any other financial institution, they charge their clients for money management.

Over the last 2-3 years I'm actually seeing the pendulum swing WAY to the other side. Surprising to see large financial firms not getting ahead of such things. At a minimum they don't need such press.
So much for their ANALytical capabilities for picking stocks and bonds. First figure out your employees.

Thanks @Catch22
I always enjoy your comments (and sense of humor) - and appreciate your taking the time to write them.
Your analogy of the carriage is exactly my point about so many of the "Value" funds today. Either that, or the company/stock has fallen out of favor for an extended time by investors for whatever reason.... or hedge funds shorting the stock for reasons of their own.
A big help for me when a MF I've liked for a long time has had an extended bad period is to look at the ratio of stock categories (tech, financial, health, etc) to see if the categ itself has been out of favor (like health, long-term care, solar, etc.) and also to look at the company names of their top 15 holdings. If it doesn't show they reduced their % allocation to the losing companies that, in my opinion, are not going to get any better, I remove that fund from consideration.

"The Belt and Road (B&R, or One Belt, One Road) is an ambitious vision for global trade, infrastructure development, and diplomacy. First articulated by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, the initiative frames China as the geographic and financial center, with ties radiating toward Europe, Asia, and Africa."
A white paper by Stephanie Gan outlining her thoughts on this new Chinese initiative. Worth your time if one is considering investing/investments in China.
http://www.seafarerfunds.com/documents/one-belt-one-road-many-motives.pdf

FYI: I am failing and I need your help.
Last spring I attended the Tiburon CEO Summit, which brings together high level executives from the biggest financial advisory firms in the country. The highlight is always Chip Roame’s State of the Industry presentation, where he barrels through a hundred slides of key statistics about what’s going on within the industry.
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2018/04/11/i-am-failing/

FYI: Financial firms representing more than $1 trillion in assets under management have endorsed a U.S. regulator’s plan to test limiting the rebates and other incentives that stock exchanges can pay to brokers, a practice critics say creates conflicts of interest.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-sec/asset-managers-back-u-s-plan-to-limit-stock-exchange-rebates-idUSKBN1HG2T0

FYI: April is Financial Literacy Month, and for good reason. We all know the costs of lack of financial preparedness, especially as our country ages into retirement.
Perhaps the first step to financial literacy is understanding commonly used terms and financial concepts in our industry. With that in mind, we put together a glossary of financial terms meant as a tool for individual investors and financial advisors.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/quick-guide-common-financial-terms?nopaging=1

@Davidmoran,
HA. I don’t want to make it personal. Sorry if I got carried away. Defensive? Maybe.
Please know that I claim no expertise in financial affairs and don’t recommend my approach to others. I simply love following and discussing financial matters, along with science & astronomy, because in those disciplines a given input equals a given outcome. In other words, both disciplines rely on logic and provable facts. Compounding works. Buying low and selling high is demonstrably more profitable than the reverse. Management fees make a difference in the long-run, etc. etc. Contrast that type of intelligent commentary with most of the garbage that gets consumed daily in our media driven society. Thus reason to read the board and share ideas.
Dick Strong and some of his cohorts gave market timing a bad name back in the late 90s. (I dunno how he escaped prison.) And the fund companies than were more or less forced to tighten their regulations to prevent timing. Without going into detail, the practice (timing) can be profitable for a few smart (or shrewd) investors, but “dings” the fund returns for most so invested (a practice sometimes called skimming).
Anyway, my plan - scatterbrained though it is - was designed to keep me from shooting myself in the foot by trading frequently. Just about everybody here, including myself, seems to agree that frequent trading is detrimental to long term returns. That’s why 75% is essentially “locked away” in a diversified core portfolio. Except for annual distributions and rare rebalancing it’s hands off with that portion.
The 25% “Flexible” portion is a concession to my perceived need to be “hands on.” I can’t tell you whether the incremental adjustments to cash/equity holdings based on perceived market risk over the years have worked or not. My guess is it’s probably been a “draw.” I can say that in ‘98 when the tech-bubble burst, bringing down the whole market, and again in late ‘08 / early ‘09 when the last bear market ended I did have a sizable cash stash to put to work. It felt good anyway to be buying low. But maybe I’d been better off if I hadn’t carried the cash/equity equation over the preceding years.
I know your OP was “Why cash?” ... It’s highly liquid for one thing. It doesn’t pose the same downside risk as short selling does. It doesn’t carry the high expenses / fees that using various derivatives would. And most fund companies don’t put restrictions on your ability to move in and out of their cash / cash equivalency accounts - as they do with their other funds. As I said earlier, bonds pose some special risks in this low rate environment that might not ordinarily exist.

FYI: Of all the wild, head-scratching moves in financial markets this year, there are few that have surprised investors quite as much as the rally in defaulted Puerto Rico bonds. “It just blows my mind,” says Matt Dalton, chief executive officer of Belle Haven Investments.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/stunned-investors-reap-95--gains-on-defaulted-puerto-rico-bonds-37943.html?print

The sad fact(s) that affect a company as Amazon and now related tech. sector companies, which of course, affects one's investments in a variety of equity holding types; is that this country has a physical sized adult, with child like behaviors presenting daily distractions in an attempt to misdirect attentions.
While I find this behavior fully disgusting, regardless of political party affiliation; I remain optimistic, as to positive outcomes for the majority of tech. related. There may be other forces that come into play for the financial markets in general, and tech. may flat line for a period; but I don't believe the majority of large tech. to be in the same boat as during the dot.com bubble. Today's companies have real business models with real earnings. Were techs. overpriced? Perhaps.
Regardless of the recent sell down in tech.; I suspect the major trading houses also have a forward positive view for large tech.
I have money in the game, too; as with all here.
Aside from whatever else worries the POTUS at this time; envy of the monetary worth of others may likely also cause him to be "plain angry" for no good real reason; aside from pure ENVY.
Lastly, to all of our investments being affected by machinations from DC-land; I have wondered whether a message has been delivered by whatever method, from a Chinese official, as to: "This tariff thing is dangerous, agreed? If necessary, we can always purchase the proper futures contracts for Treasury bonds, and begin to unload our U.S. Treasury holdings. We've already made money from holding these issues over the years and will make more money on the sell side, too."
Let us discover what comes from upcoming announcements regarding tariffs upon what products. Maybe we're inside of a virtual game, in an alternate universe, of the "Apprentice" and don't realize, eh?
I am reminded of the movie, "War Games" and the computer, WOPR; asking, "Do you want to play a game?"
We remain living in dangerous times, eh?
I've chores to get started and finished.
Take care of yourselves,
Catch

I never understood why 403(b) plans were offered to non-profits when 401(k) plans were the preferred offering in the private sector.

I never understood why employer-sponsored health plans were offered in the US when government-sponsored health plans were the preferred offering globally.
Same reason - historical accident.
403(b)'s history goes back about 3/4 of a century before the advent of 401(k)'s - to Andrew Carnegie, who created the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, with the an objective "to remedy the disparity between the great value conferred on society by higher education faculty and the miserly financial benefit society gave faculty in return." The focus was on providing pensions for educators.
This led to the Carnegie Foundation creating TIAA using annuities as the best way to provide pensions. It required no employee contribution for many years. As TIAA grew larger, that became unsustainable. TIAA was spun off, and employee contributions were added. As market returns became more important post WW2, TIAA created CREF. Finally, in 1958, Congress enacted legislation covering these plans. Thus 403(b).
401(k)'s come from the private sector, where gold watches and pensions were unfunded gratuities that employees couldn't count on. (See Studebaker, 1963.) While the Studebaker failure was the impetus for ERISA, the private sector had had CODAs (deferred compensation plans - cash or deferred arrangements) for decades, and these led to 401(k) plans.
While 403(b)s and 401(k)s are much more similar than they were in the past, they have different histories and different quirks.
Regarding the story linked to by Bee, what it doesn't say is that the company used, Aspire, charges participants $40/year and skims 15 basis points off their investments, which add their own ERs. Many of TIAA's 403(b) participants can do a bit better, e.g. VFIAX at 14 basis points, all in.
https://www.aspireonline.com/resources/faqs/-in-category/categories/categories/fees

Sounds like insurers are pushing their agenda in Washington as they attempt to buy votes for this bill's passage.
I never understood why 403(b) plans were offered to non-profits when 401(k) plans were the preferred offering in the private sector. Insurers carved out their customer base by pushing 403(b) and are now are looking for additional customers.
Good article on the differences:
https://humaninterest.com/blog/403b-compared-to-401k-retirement-plans-for-non-profits/
and,
https://investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-difference-between-401k-plan-and-403b-plan.asp
Most 403(b) investment options are variable annuities that have loads, management fees, sales fees, wrap fees, rider fees, early redemption fees...even rules that limited upside capture of market returns...feh! These TSAs are offered by insurance companies that, like AIG, are not immune to failing.
As a teacher, we fought long and hard to "force" management to offer 403b(7) investment options with low fee firms like Vanguard.
Any annuity (Insurance product) should be competitively priced and closely regulated.
Once you head down the (Annuity 401(k)) rabbit hole its expensive tunneling out.
Alternative:
Invest in low fee funds during your working years, then consider buying an immediate annuity with a portion of your investments to compliments your retirement income. This decision can wait until you are close to retiring and in fact even later into retirement if that makes better financial sense.

Pop-culture financial infotainment .... one quarter's lackluster performance is irrelevant for long-term investors who know that markets move both UP and DOWN.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
The financial products, which offer a guaranteed stream of income, have long been maligned by some financial advisers and the broader public as being costly, confusing and opaque.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=COvAWqelDO2H5wKSzoSoAg&q=investment+news+Are+annuities+finally+getting+some+respect?&oq=investment+news+Are+annuities+finally+getting+some+respect?&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1362.14338.0.15330.18.17.0.0.0.0.122.1430.15j2.17.0....0...1c.1j2.64.psy-ab..1.16.1328.0..0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i67k1.0.6370dbJ_6oI

@MikeM: . Not sure why anyone would choose this platform over a Schwab or Fidelity or other brokerages though. I connected with Computershare when Met Life Ins went public. Can you imagine how many individual received shares? I also also have another connection as MET spun off Brighthouse Financial.
I don't remember about a sales charge being mentioned for the first share deal. With Brighthouse shares it came out in info that was sent out.
Happy Easter,
Derf

FYI: When talking to active managers, fund investors can focus on the wrong things – we are heavily biased toward the short-term, and obsess over issues that are recent and salient. We also drastically overvalue confidence as a characteristic, whilst punishing circumspection, realism and humility. Given this, it is unsurprising that conversations with active managers are often shaped in a manner that is entirely at odds with the capricious and unpredictable nature of financial markets, and do little to help identify skill.
Regards,
Ted
https://behaviouralinvestment.com/2018/03/27/things-that-fund-managers-dont-say-enough/

Many load families, like many noload families, enter into bilateral agreements with individual brokerages to sell a class of funds NTF. For example, LCEAX is available NTF at Fidelity but is sold with a load at TD Ameritrade.. Likewise, the same noload fund may be sold without a fee at one brokerage, but you'll have to pay a fee at another brokerage. For example, HOVLX, NTF at TD Ameritrade, but Fidelity charges a fee.
The best thing you can hope to see in a prospectus or SAI concerning NTF load waivers is just that the fund is allowed to enter into these agreements with brokerages.
For example, Blackrock permits front end load waivers for shares sold through "Financial Intermediaries who have entered into an agreement with the Distributor and have been approved by the Distributor to offer Fund shares to self-directed investment brokerage accounts that may or may not charge a transaction fee".
http://quote.morningstar.com/fund-filing/Prospectus/2017/11/28/t.aspx?t=MDDVX&ft=485BPOS&d=b0560dd20f97785f3e555c63cbc03440 (MDDVX prospectus)
Similarly, PIMCO allows load waivers in its SAIs: "Each Fund may sell its Class A shares at net asset value without a sales charge to ... client accounts of broker-dealers ... with which the Distributor or PIMCO has an agreement for the use of Class A shares ... in particular situations in which the broker-dealer will make Class A shares available for purchase at NAV."
http://quote.morningstar.com/fund-filing/SAI/2018/3/23/t.aspx?t=PONAX&ft=497&d=081d50585090e2443fe13f6a9c05c8c4 (PIMCO SAI)
broker-dealer = financial intermediary
has an agreement = entered into an agreement
particular situations = self-directed brokerage accounts
Sure, nothing required PIMCO to offer A shares load waived at Fidelity or elsewhere. If it hadn't though, it would have been bucking an industry trend by moving from no load to load. That's what the industry was doing 20 years ago (e.g. American Century, Invesco adding loads), not now.
PIMCO was already selling A shares NTF, so this was simply a question of where, not if, A shares would be available NTF. Terminating NTF arrangements with brokerages would have been the bigger change; keeping the funds available NTF maintained the status quo.
Was there no plan at PIMCO, or simply no plan that the rep was at liberty to tell you about?

"...The key is not retirement itself, in other words, but what you do in retirement. When thinking about whether to retire, Fitzpatrick emphasized, “We need to focus on more than financial health alone.”