To be accurate on the fund's holdings, go direct to the source - TRP annual and semiannual reports. As of 6/30/21, the semi-annual report stated:
bonds, 18% = 10.4% bank loans and 7.8% corporate bonds.
cash, 10%
Options, 1%
Stocks, 72%
Noted that Giroux is taking a bar-bell approach by holding high % of defensive sector such as utility (8.1%) while holding 16% technology.
https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/summary.asp?doctype=semi&clientid=trowepll&fundid=77954M105
In his previous interviews he mentioned that bank loans (or floating rate bonds) are attractive because of their high yield (3%) and short duration (1-2 years). Even though bank loans are rated junk, they are safer because they are high in capital structure in case of the banks defaulting on the loans. Also he mentioned that utilities are attractive and stable while offer 3-4% yield.

Is the gold position in PRPFX, gold metals, or miners, are good hedge against inflation?

Good question, Without digging thru the latest report, I’m pretty confident the gold and silver reflected on the chart below are in bullion or certificates of ownership representing each. It’s possible they also hold a few mining stocks, but those would probably be reflected in the “stock“ holdings rather than being listed under gold.

FWIW - PRPFX belongs to a class of funds known as “Risk Parity.” These funds attempt to hedge market risk by diversifying among distinctly different asset classes. Common ones include equities, natural resources, high quality bonds. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t.
I’ve come across an ETF recently that has piqued my interest. RPAR takes a somewhat different risk parity approach. I like what I see. And the fee, while high for an ETF, is less than PRPFX’s. Here’s a Link which does a nice job showing how RPAR invests.
Just to respond to @Sven’s inflation comment. I wouldn’t buy gold expecting it to protect against inflation. It’s just too darn volatile to expect that. Possibly it would, but it’s also possible its investors have already discounted years of future inflation in its price. However, a broad basket of commodities, including some gold, may well offer better protection against future inflation than equities alone would. Plus, there may be good reasons to own gold that reach far beyond the inflation issue. But - that’s beyond my pay grade.
@Sven - Everything I read suggests that the miners are a better buy than the bullion at this point. So, if one can stomach the risk and volatility, a slight bet on the miners wouldn’t be a bad idea. I like to invest a set dollar amount and let it ride. Helps keep me disciplined so that I don’t sell too early or, conversely, keep throwing money at them when they’re nose-diving.

'Tis that time of year again! Some preliminary estimates are now available. As in years past, please alphabetize your funds. To make it easier for readers post (new) next to your additions to differentiate it from your older existing posts. Be sure to check the entire post for various posts with possible links. Thanks to everyone who contributes and posts their information.
1290 Funds:
http://www.1290funds.com/resources/#taxInformation
1919 Funds:
https://1919funds.com/pdfs/all/1919-Capital-Gains.pdf
AB Funds:
https://www.alliancebernstein.com/sites/investments/us/resources/pdf/FINAL_GEN-5796.pdf
Aberdeen Funds:
https://www.abrdn.com/docs?editionId=d0fbe25e-6e24-4c0d-933e-836e8341e133
Aegis Value Fund:
https://www.aegisfunds.com/assets/pdfs/Aegis_Value_Fund-2021_Distributions.pdf
Akre Focus Fund:
https://www.akrefund.com/historical-distributions/
Alger Funds:
https://www.alger.com/Pages/Page.aspx?pageLabel=DividendsDistributions
AlphaCentric Funds:
https://alphacentricfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/AlphaCentric-Distributions-2021-11-23-EST.pdf
Alps Funds:
https://www.alpsfunds.com/api/resources/6f4c6c6e8800441d87d81058b354252d.pdf
American Beacon Funds:
https://www.americanbeaconfunds.com/downloads/resourcecenter/TaxAndDividend/2021EstimatedYeaEndDividends.pdf
American Century Funds:
https://www.americancentury.com/content/direct/en/insights/guidance-planning/tax-center/preparing-your-taxes/estimated-distributions.html
American Funds:
https://www.capitalgroup.com/individual/service-and-support/tax-center/2021-year-end-distributions.html
AMG Funds:
https://www.amgfunds.com/content/dam/amgfunds/documents/other/amgf-capital-gains.pdf
Angel Oak Funds:
https://angeloakcapital.com/2021-estimated-capital-gains/
AQR Funds:
https://funds.aqr.com/-/media/Files/Fund-Documents/AQR-Funds-Announces-Estimated-Income-and-Capital-Gain-Distributions-for-2021.pdf?la=en&hash=A94779E3ADD5198C1535315D18D47A67
Arbitrage Funds:
https://arbitragefunds.com/news
Ariel Funds:
https://www.arielinvestments.com/distributions/
Aristotle Funds:
https://aristotlefunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Aristotle-Funds-2021-Distribution-Estimates-as-of-2021-10-19-ACM-2110-302.pdf
Ark ETF:
https://etfs.ark-funds.com/hubfs/1_Download_Files_ETF_Website/Distribution Files/ARKETFs_12021_Handout_Capital_Gains_Distribution_2021.pdf
Artisan Partners Funds (final):
https://www.artisanpartners.com/individual-investors/resources/tax-center/distributions.html
Auxier Focus Fund:
https://auxierasset.com/files/uploads//2021-Distribution-Estimates-.pdf
Ave Maria Funds:
https://avemariafunds.com/fund-family/dist-2021.html
AXS Funds/Cognois subadviser:
https://www.axsinvestments.com/download/551/axs-market-neutral-fund/5014/distributions-10.pdf
Baillie Gifford Funds:
https://www.bailliegifford.com/literature-library/funds/mutual-funds/estimated-capital-gain-distribution-new/
Baird Funds:
https://www.bairdassetmanagement.com/siteassets/pdfs/distributions/2021-estimated-capital-gains.pdf
Baron Funds:
https://www.baronfunds.com/tax-center
Blackrock Funds:
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/literature/distribution-information/blackrock-funds-distribution-estimates-2021.pdf
BNY Mellon Funds:
https://im.bnymellon.com/us/en/documents/manual/tax-forms/2021-early-estimated-capital-gains-august-2021.pdf
Boston Partners Funds:
https://www.boston-partners.com/uploads/2021/11/ac8b379f23048488ba935744ac3d8477/bp-funds-2021-estimated-cap-gain-dist.pdf
Brandes Funds:
https://www.brandes.com/docs/default-source/mutual-fund/handouts/Brandes-Capital-Gains-Estimates
Bretton Fund:
https://brettonfund.com/2021-distribution-information/
Bridge Builder Funds:
http://www.bridgebuildermutualfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/current/Bridge_Builder_2021_Capital_Gains.pdf
Bridgeway Funds (BRUSX - ouch):
https://bridgewayfunds.com/mutual-funds/distributions/
Brown Brothers Harriman Funds:
https://www.bbhfunds.com/content/dam/bbh/external/bbhfunds/resources/pdfs/2021-distributions/2021-BBH-Trust-Distribution-Estimates.pdf
Brown Capital Management Funds (click on distribution link under "key documents" ):
https://www.browncapital.com/investmentstrategies/smallcompanyfundinv/
Bruce Fund (called rep on 12/17 and received the following info which is tentative):
ordinary income -$9.7481
ST CG -$1.9481
LT CG - $50.2761
Buffalo Funds:
https://buffalofunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2021-Capital-Gains-Distribution-Estimates.pdf
Calamos Funds:
https://www.calamos.com/globalassets/media/documents/tax-center/2021-calamos-estimated-capital-gains.pdf
Calvert Funds (same as Eaton Vance):
https://funds.eatonvance.com/media/public/4878.pdf
Cambiar Funds:
https://cambiar.com/capital-gains-2021-estimates/
Carillon Funds:
https://www.carillontower.com/our-funds/fund-dividend-and-tax-information
Castle Investments:
Castle Tandem Fund
https://www.castleim.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Castle-Tandem-Cap-Gain-Estimate-11-1-2021-.pdf
Castle Focus Fund
https://www.castleim.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/A-Castle-Focus-Cap-Gain-Estimate-Nov-1-2021-Update.pdf
Catalyst Funds:
https://catalystmf.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/11/catalyst-distributions-2021-10-31-est.pdf
Causeway Funds:
https://www.causewaycap.com/wp-content/uploads/Causway-Funds-2021-Estimates.jpg
Cavanal Hill Funds:
https://cavanalhillfunds.com/uploads/documents/2021_Estimated_CapitalGains_CavHil.pdf
Centerstone Investors:
https://centerstoneinv.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Website-Summary-Dividend-Distribution-August-2021.pdf
Champlain Funds:
https://cipvt.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Champlain-Estimated-Yr-End-Distributions-2021-vr-101521.pdf
City National Rochdale Funds:
https://www.citynationalrochdalefunds.com/assets/PDFs/Distributions/CNR_Cap_Gains_Distribution_Memo_2021.pdf
Clarkston Funds:
http://www.clarkstonfunds.com/documents/clarkstonfunds-dd-20211110.pdf
Clipper Fund:
https://clipperfund.com/document/read/2021_estimated_year_end_capital_gains_distributions
Cohen & Steers:
https://assets.cohenandsteers.com/assets/content/tax_documents/OEF_2021_Distributions_Estimate_September_30_2021.pdf
Coho Funds:
https://www.cohofunds.com/relative-value-equity-fund/tax-information/
Columbia Funds:
https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/binaries/content/assets/cti/public/2021_cap_gain_yearend_estimates.pdf
Commerce Funds:
https://www.commercefunds.com/fund-information/distributions
Conestoga Funds:
https://www.conestogafunds.com/conestoga-small-cap-fund
https://www.conestogafunds.com/conestoga-mid-cap-fund-with-perf
https://www.conestogafunds.com/conestoga-smid-cap-fund
Congress Asset Management Funds:
http://www.congressasset.com/assets/mutual-fund-capital-gains-2021.pdf
Copeland Funds (new):
https://www.copelandfunds.com/system/files/fields/field-file/2021-12/2021-cap-gains-distribution-flyer-final.pdf
Credit Suisse Funds (new):
https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/asset-management/docs/us/tax-information/2021/2021-credit-suisse-preliminary-distribution-notification.pdf
CRM Funds:
https://www.crmfunds.com/funds-overview/shareholder-resources/distributions/

One of the portfolio stats that jumped out at me was that bond holdings only accounted for 1.4% of fund assets. I'm a bond novice compared to many here who are able to speak with incredible knowledge, but this fact certainly says much about Giroux's views on bonds. His main focus on bonds for a bit has been short-term high yield, so it seems he's even moved on from that area.

You are correct. Giroux has stated in his annual semi-annual reports (within past 1-2 years) that he views bonds as a terrible investment under current conditions. (Not an exact quote - but a close approximation). I don’t pretend to understand his methodology and how he keeps volatility as low as he does. But seems to work for him. Probably playing with some derivatives to hedge bets.
Added: Here’s a current source that has the fund about 10% cash and 18% bonds. A good guess is that most of that 18% is in very short term treasuries and by some analysts’ interpretation represent cash - accounting for a discrepancy among different break-downs.

A couple of reference links:
I believe this is the Melanie Waddell writing that syzygy quoted.
Ed Slott Weighs In on House Democrats' Proposed Mega-IRA Crackdown (from ThinkAdvisor)
The 881 page markup to the Build Back Better Act that contains the proposed backdoor Roth IRA changes:
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/NEAL_032_xml.pdf
Thanks to davfor for the Wyden proposal link; it contains a link to the actual text:
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pass-through Changes Discussion Draft Legislative Text.pdf
The part of the text that pertains to ETFs, in its entirety is:

SEC. __17. RECOGNITION OF GAIN ON CERTAIN DISTRIBUTIONS BY REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 852(b) is amended by striking paragraph (6).
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022.

Simplicity itself. Section 852(b)(6) gives RICs (including ETFs) special tax treatment. So striking this section takes away that special treatment. ETFs would no longer be able to divest themselves of gain without owing taxes on the gain.

An oft heard refrain: I just want to make sure that the small investor isn't hurt. Coincidentally, the definition used for small investor turns out to include the speaker. Though it may sound like I'm picking on BenWP here, my observation is general. Even before reading details of the proposal, I was confident that the proposed change would fall primarily on wealthier investors.
First, because the truly little guy is insulated from capital gain taxation - until one's taxable income exceeds $40,400 (single) or $80,800 (joint), cap gains are taxed at 0%. Second, because (at least as of 2012) only 1/3 of households even had taxable investment accounts, and I think it's a safe bet that these are largely not lower income households. "It is immediately clear that household income has the strongest relationship with taxable account ownership."
https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/fixed-income-advisory-committee/finra-investor-education-foundation-investor-households-fimsa-040918.pdf
The in-kind transaction loophole existed for all forms of businesses (corporations, funds, etc.) since 1935. Congress began narrowing it in 1969. It was little used until ETFs came along and exploited it. It has never made sense from a tax principle perspective - cap gains cannot simply go **poof**. Logically they should either accrue to the company (RIC) or if passed through, to the recipient.

Throughout the history of U.S. investment companies, in-kind distributions have been exempt from tax at the fund level. As Congress began to limit and finally prohibit in 1986 the tax-free distribution of appreciated property by corporations, it continued to specifically exempt open-end funds from this rule. There is scant discussion in the legislative history for the justification for this exemption or why closed-end funds were not also eligible. Perhaps the simplest explanation for the legislative silence is that when [the tax code was changed to narrow the exemption], in-kind distributions from open-end funds were rare.

Jeffrey Colon, The Great ETF Tax Swindle: The Taxation of In-Kind Redemptions, 122 Penn St. L. Rev. 1 (2017)
Abstract: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/722/
Paper: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1721&context=faculty_scholarship
As to the proposal, it is simplicity itself. Registered investment companies (OEFs and ETFs) are to be treated the same way as other companies. When they sell holdings, they are to recognize capital gains. Regardless of the form of the sale, i.e. regardless of whether they receive cash or fund shares in exchange for the securities they sell.
No more special cases. No special case because they're conducting an in-kind transaction. No special case because they're an OEF or ETF rather than a CEF.
ETFs would be expected to respond by selling their highest cost shares to the AP (authorized participant) rather than their lowest cost shares. At least if they cared about tax efficiency. That's the same method that OEFs use when raising cash to redeem shares.
Regarding Vanguard: Even before Vanguard started selling VIPERs (Vanguard Index Participation Receipts), their index funds tended to be the most tax efficient on the market. There were many years when their broad based index funds did not distribute cap gains. The proposed change should make Vanguard funds (and ETFs) look even better relative to their competition because of demonstrated skill in minimizing taxes.
Vanguard writes: “the ability of mutual funds and ETFs to transact securities in-kind is a longstanding practice that improves outcomes for millions of investors.” Funds could always transact in-kind.
ETFs fundamentally rely upon this ability in order to keep market price close to NAV. The proposed change does not affect their ability to transact in-kind. OEFs sometimes rely upon this ability as well. It is reasonably well known that Sequoia not only reserves the right to redeem shares in kind, but states explicitly that it is likely to do so for redemptions above $250K. Investors benefit because funds are not forced to conduct fire sales to meet large redemptions.
Sequoia Prospectus: It is highly likely that the Fund will pay you in securities or partly in securities if you make a redemption request (or a series of redemptions) in an amount greater than $250,000.

@BaluBalu- your suggestion has been discussed in detail many times over the years, and the management decided to create an "Off Topic" section for all topics other than financial matters. This arrangement has almost always been honored by the MFO members.
Since the Off-Topic section must be specifically selected to view it, it remains inoffensive to the majority of posters who are uninterested in non-financial commentary.

Regarding Roth conversion limits for high-earners, Congress chose to delay the limits for 10 years according to Ed Slott:
"In order to close so-called “backdoor” Roth IRA strategies, the bill eliminates Roth conversions for both IRAs and employer-sponsored plans for single taxpayers (or taxpayers married filing separately) with taxable income over $400,000, married taxpayers filing jointly with taxable income over $450,000, and heads of households with taxable income over $425,000 (all indexed for inflation).
“This is similar to the old $100,000 income limitation for Roth conversions that existed before 2010, except now the income limits are increased to the $400,000/$450,000 levels,” Slott explained. “Oddly though, this proposal would not be effective for 10 years. The effective date says this would apply in years after Dec. 31, 2031.”
This change “would end Roth conversions for high-earners, but Congress still wants its conversion tax dollars. What to do?” Slott continued. “Maybe this delayed effective date shows us that Congress still needs this Roth conversion revenue so it can fill budget gaps, at least for the next 10 years. So, this provision is a non-issue for now.”

Vanguard individual investors will be affected according to WSJ:
"Vanguard Group declined to comment on the proposal, but said “the ability of mutual funds and ETFs to transact securities in-kind is a longstanding practice that improves outcomes for millions of investors.” For the majority of its U.S. ETFs, Vanguard uses a unique structure in which the firm’s ETFs are share classes of mutual funds.
In these cases, Vanguard’s ETFs can transfer appreciated stocks out of the mutual fund they are tied to in exchanges that don’t incur tax consequences for investors. This means that taxation of in-kind trades would affect both Vanguard’s ETFs and mutual funds.
Executives at Vanguard over the years had questioned whether the favorable tax treatment of in-kind trades would last, said a person familiar with the matter."
Similar article appeared in Barrons.

“Robinhood Markets Inc., the go-to trading app for young investors, wants its user base to get even younger. The digital brokerage is kicking off a nationwide marketing campaign Wednesday that is designed to turn more college students into Robinhood customers. Robinhood will give students who sign up for brokerage accounts using their school email address $15 to trade, and enter them into a $20,000 giveaway.
“Robinhood executives will tour campuses of community colleges and historically black colleges and universities this fall … Robinhood reported earlier this year that its median user was 31 years old and that more than half of its customers hadn’t previously had a brokerage account. Robinhood already has more than 3.8 million student customers.”
From: The Wall Street Journal September 16, 2021
Here’s a link, but you’ll likely need a subscription to get in

My reasoning for "suggesting" that Artisan starting a BL fund, is just based on "my" general observation, that some of the major investing families, will often introduce a new category fund, or an additional fund in an existing category, when they view the fund's future as bright, and potentially attractive, for investors interested in that category. In general, BL funds do well when interest rates are flat, or rising. In 2021 BL has been one of the most consistent bond categories for the year, with many of the better known BL funds "quietly" having very good years, compared to historical TRs. It is just my opinion, but I have done well with some BLs in 2021, and I am not surprised to see more BLs opening.

Vanguard International total bond index fund, VTABX, is often part of Vanguard 's target date funds. Low volatility but also low yield.
I agree EM debt is perhaps a better option for income investor. So what is so unique of VEMBX? This is a EM local currency fund and this category has not done well in recent years.

Next, Forsyth bemoans that [] honors have been denied baseball legend[] Pete Rose (for betting on games he was managing).
I think he's getting the problem backward. It's not that Rose might leverage nonpublic knowledge, say that some teammates were playing with hidden injuries, to make profitable bets. It's that Rose had the power and ability to change conditions so that bets he had made would pay off. He wasn't managing that many years after the Black Sox.
Okay, so trading/betting on nonpublic information is also a concern. The major problem though is not that someone makes a few bucks (or a few million bucks) off of public information, but that someone is motivated to manipulate the entire system.
Imagine if Powell had made sizeable investments that would pay off if interest rates rose - not based on private information - just public data that the economy was improving, inflation increasing, etc. Now suppose the economy goes into a tailspin, say Covid μ turns out to be more virulent, more resistant to current vaccines than currently believed. He would be tempted to, and likely have the power to raise interest rates anyway.
That's the bigger problem. Market manipulation rather than insider trading. The insider trading rules allow an exception for selling according to a predefined schedule. That protects against someone making use of insider information. But it doesn't protect against someone manipulating the system, knowing what is scheduled to be sold and when.

@Derf, I don’t have good track record on EM bond funds. Last ones I held were PImco from 2008 and their funds took over several years to recover. To compound the mistake, I bought too much at once instead building the position over 3-6 months.

The underperformance unfortunately goes beyond 2015-16. Prior to this year in which the fund is winning, Sequoia has underperformed its Morningstar Large-Cap Growth fund category peers for seven straight calendar years. Admittedly, one could argue it is miscategorized as large-growth. I wonder how it would hold up versus say the large-blend category. But 2021 so far has been a good year for this fund.

Yes, sometimes managers make comments outside SEC disclosures about their direct economic participation. I was asking folks to share if they are aware of such information.
I read this AM the M* analyst report for this fund. M* gives a Neutral rating, only one level above Negative, but gushes over with "[Managers] invest heavily in the strategy alongside fundholders." Who knows what the "heavily" means but hopefully not just the over $1M disclosed in the SAI (SEC filing).
Evidently, the current four managers have been with this fund for at least 10 years, which includes 2015-16.
The above is just an FYI.

That makes sense, David.
Since there seems to be keen interest in this fund on this board, do we know what is the max any current manager has invested in the fund? M* says more than a million dollars, which does not impress me as I think that would be less than 1 yr of compensation for each of the managers. M* reports from SAI. I would like to see 3-5 yrs of annual compensation before putting any positive weight on managers’ economic participation. I get that having too much of managers’ wealth could be a detriment too but 3-5 years of annual comp is not too much, given a lot investors put 5-10% of their wealth in a fund.
P.S.: I have never invested in this fund but am open to investing in it, not withstanding its misadventures in 2015-16.

One thing I question is the assumption that an ETF can’t close to investors. They have in the past I believe but for bad non-capacity issues, like liquidity issues with the underlying securities. After closing, the ETF would effectively become a closed-end fund trading at a premium or discount to its underlying portfolio value. But in the example we’re discussing where the ETF attracts many billions of assets because of strong performance if it closed it would almost certainly trade at a premium for a while as investors would still want access to a high performing fund. This premium would be to the advantage of existing shareholders as they could sell their shares for more than they really should be worth. It would be a disadvantage to new investors paying the premium. But as has already been mentioned, that’s a nice problem for a fund to have as it would mean the fund has been very successful. I doubt that will be the problem here and if it is, not for some years.

If anybody feels knowledgeable enough, I’d appreciate your explanation / opinions on the “liquidity” issue Randall Forsyth mentions briefly in the Sept. 13 Barron’s. The debt part I understand. But the liquidity part is what I’m not fully reeling in.
Here’s Forsyth’s final paragraph:
“As a result of the past 20 years’ policies, America's public debt is one-quarter larger than the economy, versus a little more than half of gross domestic product in the third quarter of 2001. At the same time, the Fed's assets—mainly U.S. Treasury securities—have grown more than 11-fold, to over $8.3 trillion. As a result, the financial system has become so overstuffed with liquidity that more than $1.1 trillion is parked at the Fed's overnight reverse-repurchase facility. Who could have foreseen this two decades ago?”
-
As investors, we like to have liquidity. It allows us to move from one position to another easily or take advantage of opportunities that arise. No? So why is having too much of it dangerous to the economy?

Like series I savings bonds, series EE savings bonds cannot be redeemed until a year after purchase. Between one and five years, you lose the last three months of interest if you cash out. No penalty after five years.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ebonds/res_e_bonds_eeredeem.htm#when
With EE series savings bonds, there's another implicit penalty. For savings bonds held 20 years, the value of the bond is adjusted to twice its purchase price. Using the rule of 72, that's an annual rate of approximately 72/20 = 3.6%.
But if you cash out earlier, you'll earn just the stated rate on the savings bonds. For newly purchased EE savings bonds, that's a piddly 0.10%. So you "lose" 3.5% in interest annually if you sell before waiting 20 years.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ebonds/res_e_bonds_eeratesandterms_eebondsissued052005andafer.htm#buy