Here’s the part I found most interesting - “He predicts major indexes can still notch gains for the year, recovering their steep losses.” You’d think that for such a bold prediction the WSJ would have quoted directly rather than summarizing or paraphrasing Giroux’s words.
I believe it was Yogi (the 1st) who said making predictions - especially about the future - is difficult. Giroux turned guru?
Thanks @LewisBraham for the plethora of charts showing relative values & performances of value stocks vs growth over many years. Still trying to digest.
PS - Looks like another blood-bath in the markets shaping up today - unless you like seeing oil jump higher by 10% or so in a day’s time. Wonder if that interview was conducted prior to the invasion of Ukraine? Likely.

This really work! I got my form 3 days before the email notice arrived. I went the paperless route a number years ago since it is the quickest way to get your form. Good luck.

I imagine there is a certain amount of money being moved away from emerging markets to “safer” U.S. blue chips.

Weird. But I purchased a small bit of an EM fund for first time in years Thursday (DODEX). An area normally way outside my risk perimeter. But my general reading of various (possibly flawed) sources over time convinces me there’s some relative value there. Just MHO.
I’ll be watching the futures late tonight. Putin’s placing his nukes on higher alert can’t be good for global equities of any sort. Gold may benefit. But spending it later problematic … :(
Re the OP - I thought the insights into investor sentiment of interest. Obviously, there’s no one reason why equities do what they do on any given day.

According to current Barron's,
RUSSIAN stocks down -50% from October high. UKRAINIAN dollar-denominated bond maturing in 5 years yield 32.6%.

Well,
I would say it depends on how much your portfolio value is, no? I would think if you had for convo's sake, over $5-10MM or even $500k, maybe 20% would be the most I would be comfortable with in one fund, diverse holdings as it might hold regardless.
I seem to recall someone here stating a friend of their's had all their monies in was it Blackrock Global Allocation MALOX, fund and was way comfortable with it. Thinking was it was hands off, was diversified, US/Intl, Stonk, Bonds etc.
Also remember reading an article way back in IBD Investors Bidness Daily about that, just keep adding to one diversified fund and keep going...
When I was a yute, I had 5 stonks I started with, Raytheon, Kellogg, Coca Cola, Merck and Walmart...I haven't looked but if I just stayed with those 5 over the past call it close to 40 years, prolly would have done alright.
But ya, PRWCX, darn good place to put your monies.
Dangerous times indeed, cannot believe how many thinks what is going on in Ukraine is just some event that won't affect our markets and our way of life for years to come.
BTW...@davidmoran...don't even get me started on 1619 project, CRT etc...I'll just say I disagree with your leftist progressive thinking and posted articles and leave it at that...and see you at the polls this autumn...
Best Regards to ALL,
Baseball Fan

PRWCX is about 8% of my stash. It is in my Roth account. I'm no longer working so I can't contribute more that way, but could move some from another fund company to there. I did it once a few years ago. I'm not adding more as I am fine where it is now, but otherwise would.

I find his overall review of the market very useful. He is essentially trying to time the market, but with proprietary models and formulas that he has used to good effect for years. However he is not "All in or all out" and has a model ETF portfolio. Currently 23% cash 7 % in inverse SP 500 ETF 5% Gold

The stock market has in recent years been more interested in receiving the Fed's continued support than about closely concerning itself with traditional valuation metrics (TINA). Related to that, Powell repeatedly indicated over the past couple of years the Fed would wait for clear signs inflation was more than a transient problem before it would act to counter it. He also repeatedly expressed confidence the Fed has adequate tools to successfully deal with it if necessary. The stock market is now questioning the adequacy of the Fed's tools and whether its continued confidence in the Fed can be justified. I am cautious at this point.

Thank you, one and all. All I can add at this point (maybe more tomorrow) is that
1) "Trust For Professional Managers" of which Mairs & Power proposes to become a series, or to "become series" as the proxy booklet puts it, seems to be *already" incorporated in Delaware.
and
2) The question about how much I trust management is well put and on target. At this point I don't know the answer other than to say I have been trusting them a long time and I have not found my trust to be misplaced. But when a fund company that has been sending me reports and statements for 25 years which have been written in clear English sentences with nothing obscure now sends me 83 pages containing difficult-to-penetrate language I naturally wonder why the language is obscure. George Mairs and his successors did not write in scintillating prose. Bob Torray back in the day was certainly more entertaining. But I did know what every sentence in each M&P missive meant without having to read it over and over.

Corporations tend to incorporate in Delaware primarily, as Lewis wrote, because of its pro-business regulations. Another rationale given is that Delaware has the most developed corporate law. Though this is somewhat circular - companies incorporate in Delaware because it provides a rich corporate regulatory framework, while that framework develops because so many companies (with so many cases) incorporate in Delaware.
The relaxing of restrictions is in part simply cleanup. As noted in the proxy, it has been over sixty years since the funds have taken a good look at their fundamental restrictions. Since that time, a lot has changed in fund regulations and the industry has grown more sophisticated. It's not unreasonable to look at bringing the restrictions up to date. Many funds have been gone through this process.
It's hard to say how many of these options the funds will avail themselves of, but the new rules in this filing would allow them to do things very differently from what they currently are doing.
That's the key question. To put it another way, how much do you trust the management? I would read the prospectuses of Michael Price's Mutual Series funds and marvel at how wildly he was permitted to run the funds. And yet they were among the least risky around. Regardless of what the restrictions are, management matters.
FWIW, also in the proxy is this statement: "The Adviser has advised each Board that if the recommended changes are approved, the Adviser does not presently intend to change the manner in which it manages the Funds, or to materially increase the Funds’ risk profiles."

This last miscue by TRP was relatively minor compared with my once-in-a-century travails in transferring an IRA. What got me was the way the conversation went. It wasn't so much that I had to push the rep to actually dig into the records. Unfortunately, this occasionally happens at other companies also. Rather it was the assurance that I wouldn't get any more mailings on the very closed account.
No action was taken, nothing was noted. But miraculously after more than three years (plan was closed in 2018) the system would now realize it wasn't supposed to send more mailings? Sure.
TRP used to be very helpful and a pleasure to contact. It is too bad they have changed so much.
Fidelity's request for a recent statement is standard operating procedure in the industry. I imagine it is done for protection, yours as well as theirs. This helps them check that the account information provided is correct and that the correct assets are being transferred. I usually just download my most recent statement and then upload it to Fidelity.

In May 2020 it was announced that Mr Beini Zhou ex-Matthews was going to run a SCV fund for Artisan. Does it normally take two years to get a fund up and running?

All good recommendations. I would also take a look at Vanguard core international and YAFFX or YACKX which are really global funds if you look at their portfolios. I also think that DFIV and EWU look interesting because of their sector makeup and value orientation. Personally though I’m not adding any international while Ukraine is mess is going on. I’m still holding MIOPX but likely to sell soon. It’s been painful for intl Large cap growth. That fund was so strong over last 19 years

Hi @yogibearbull
This chart is a just for the "heck of it", that I set several years ago for my viewing pleasure. Tracking the yield, versus pricing performance; so we're looking at the percentage change in yield rate over period "x". This particular chart is YTD.
Note: yields at various times may be viewed "hovering" on the chart lines, and the time frame may be changed from the 36 days shown below the chart.
30 year - 1 year rate of yield change

I have noticed several things about Yahoo Finance (YF) data:
1. Data-feed errors are generally not fixed. This I have noticed at other sites too. Reason probably is that it is pointless to correct data-feed errors manually as the next data-feed refresh may just restore those. Fund families whose data are involved don't care - this I KNOW from my prior emails to YF and fund families.
2. Yahoo Finance does process some of its data. Adjusted-prices is something unique to Yahoo Finance (and Stockcharts, etc). Not everyone is sold on this concept (others do Growth-of-10K). Another area is Treasury rates ^TNX, ^TYX, etc where YF doesn't follow the typical 10x rate scale convention (CBOE, Stockcharts, etc) and that leads to some fantastic transient error in that data at YF on some afternoons.
3. I also suspect that in adjusted-price calculations, YF rounds results to 2 decimals in EACH step. This rounding error then propagates and becomes noticeable for periods larger than 10 years. Conceptually, the results from adjusted-prices and Growth-of-10K should be closer to what they actually are.
Under Data Disclaimer, Yahoo Finance provides multiple sources of its data.
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/finance-for-web/SLN2310.html?locale=en_US
"US quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE American when available from Nasdaq Last Sale and if not available it will appear delayed from the consolidated tape. See delay times for other exchanges below. Quotes are updated automatically but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity.
Financial statements, valuation ratios, market cap and shares outstanding data provided by Morningstar.
Company profile data provided by S&P Global Market Intelligence.
US equities and global index historical data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc.
International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar.
Analyst estimates, earnings, corporate, economic events, non-US IPO, and insider transactions data provided by Refinitiv*.
Top institutional and mutual fund holders provided by Vickers-stock.com.
SEC Filings and US IPO data is provided by EDGAR Online, a division of Donnelley Financial LLC.
Sustainability data provided by Sustainalytics and Morningstar.
Upgrades and downgrades provided by Benzinga.
Corporate governance scores provided by Institutional Shareholder Services."

@Starchild: It has been a rough ride for holders of MGGPX, but BGAFX (Baron) has been even rougher for the past two years. APFDX, also a global growth fund, has had a smoother go of it and I have kept it in favor of the other two. Foreign large growth has been equal to the task of keeping up with the US-domiciled LCG stocks: the problem is that it's been a race to the bottom. As @Derf suggested, foreign LCV looks attractive; FMIJX has a very solid record and some of the best shareholder reports out there. On the basis of the success of Smead Value (which I own), I took a winger on their new international value, SVXAX. If I'm wrong on this pick, I can say I was "early" without dissimulating.

Beating a dead horse, and yet it continues to kick.
I used to have an individual 401(k) with TRP, but closed it three years ago. Really, really closed it - informed TRP that I was terminating the plan, filed a final 5500 with the IRS.
Got a mailing last week saying that I had to file papers restating the plan. This is something that happens every few years for plans that are open. Not plans that are closed, terminated, kaput.
Called TRP (with the now typical 20 minute hold). They insisted that while I had zeroed out the account, the plan was still open. I asked how I could now terminate the plan. I was told I didn't have to do anything, I could just leave the plan dormant. Alternatively, TRP did have a way to formally close the plan - please wait while we put you on hold.
When the rep came back, I was told that, sure enough, my plan really was closed. But that happened some time ago and she had to look into the records. (What was she looking at up to that point?)
That still left me having received legal paperwork for a plan that was terminated years ago. What next? 5498s for IRAs that were closed out a decade ago? 1099s showing zero income?
It appears you can check out any time you like (with a lot of effort) but you can never leave.

We've seen something similar before. Several years ago two funds in another fund family mispricing securities. When the prices were corrected, the funds suffered one day drops of 44.0% and 69.4%.
That mispricing was not done by tweaking computer models as here. Rather, according to the SEC charge the mispricing was aided and abetted by the independent pricing company. Of course the charge included fraud and lack of transparency. Oh, and insider trading.
JR suggests that in order to pull something like this off, the fund has to be investing in esoteric, exotic instruments, otherwise one could just read off market prices. A security doesn't have to be exotic to be thinly traded. The other funds invested in junk munis. Not your run of the mill vanilla bonds, but not exactly esoteric either.
WSJ, 2011, Mutual Funds' Muni-Debt Prices Are Questioned
He also says that this could not happen in a fund company with compliance officers and supervisors. Not necessarily. They could be complicit. With these two funds, not only did the SEC charge the CEO and founder, but also the COO, the general counsel, the senior VP of trading, the treasurer, three independent directors and an associated director.
The upshot? The CEO retained that position until he handed it over to his son in 2013. He remains chairman. He's still managing the fund family's original fund. Five years after the charges were filed, the SEC told the parties not to do it again ("cease and desist") and fined the fund family and the CEO a joint amount of $3.5M. Other participants were each fined a lesser amount of $95K or $25K.
The CEO was William J. Nasgovitz. The funds were Heartland High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund and Heartland Short Duration High-Yield Municipal Fund. Given that the board did nothing and allowed Nasgovitz to retain his position for two decades, I will never invest in a Heartland fund.
SEC press release detailing charges
SEC complaint
Paragraph summary of SEC administrative action with link to SEC doc
From MFO's briefly noted:

As part of Heartland Advisors’ succession plan, founder William (“Bill”) J. Nasgovitz intends to transfer a controlling interest in Heartland Advisors to Will Nasgovitz, the Chief Executive Officer of Heartland Advisors, in 2022. The elder Mr. Nasgovitz launched the firm, and the Heartland Value Fund, in 1984.

https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2022/01/briefly-noted-63/

When a fund house (VG) can tumble from #3 to #43 in a year there’s something wrong with the gage being used.

When the cause of that decline is laid (in part) at the foot of VPMAX, there's more wrong than just the gauge.

Vanguard's drop occurred, in part, because of weaker relative performance in two of its three biggest funds, the $72 billion Vanguard PrimeCap (ticker: VPMAX) and the $59 billion Vanguard International Growth (VWILX).

At the end of 2020, the fund had $70B in assets (per quarterly filing), so its weighting didn't change much.
Its one year performance in 2020 put it at the 93rd percentile of LCG funds (per M*). Its one year performance in 2021 put it at the 88th percentile of LC Blend funds. M* changed its category in 2021, but its portfolio had been blend since 2018. If it had been ranked against LCG fund in 2021, it would have been ranked at the 54th percentile (same 2021 performance as BLYRX).
No matter how you slice it, Primecap's relative performance in 2021 matched if not exceeded its relative performance in 2020. So, rather than pulling Vanguard's 2021 ranking down, Primecap should have either had little effect or raised Vanguard's 2021 position. Poor performance both years, but slightly less poor from a ranking perspective in 2021.

@hank, sorry about the confusing title.
She questioned the possibility of recession. Given the last quarter's GDP of over 4%, it has to get much worse to go negative. She mentioned high inflation but did not elaborate consequences.
As for us, changes were made last year. They are bearing fruits now: rotated from growth to value funds (both US and oversea), added precious metal and commodity funds, moved bond funds to short duration bonds and TIPS, and cash. Otherwise, our portfolio is down modestly. Considering the market condition, it would be down even more.

Thanks for the nice summation. Being “down a bit” comes with the territory if you’re invested for capital appreciation / growth. I don’t mind being down a few % some years. Limiting losses is about the best one can hope for unless you go into cash or some types of fixed income. In 2008 I lost 21%. Hurt a bit. But time horizon was much longer then and made it up in subsequent years. Situation much different today. Age forces some of us to take less risk and protect against double-digit losses.