I own both. Good funds. This is purely hypothetical.
If you were going to sell part or all of one to raise portfolio cash, which is the better one to retain going forward (1-3 years)?
- In favor of keeping RPGAX: Has 10% in a Blackstone hedge fund that should protect somewhat in a bear market, has solid conservative management at TRP, probably has had a more level performance record since inception (but didn’t exist in 2008).
- In favor of keeping DODBX: Much lower ER (.53% vs .95%), Is more in-tune with the recent shift towards value, bond portion is managed by the same folks that run their excellent DODIX
MaxFunds is of little help. Forecasts a “worst case” (1 year) loss of 60% for RPGAX and a slightly worse 65% loss for DODBX. On the one-year upside potential, they’re rated identically. However, MaxFunds rates RPGAX much more highly overall. This appears largely based on their assessment that DODBX is bloated.
*Note - I don’t think the “global” vs “domestic” issue is worth fretting over here. DODBX typically holds some foreign stocks - more than one might think.

Owned PREMX (TRP) many years ago. I wonder if they'll be affected. Dunno what they're holding, these days. And that's not a local currency fund.

The old deck lumber we removed aged considerably and they hold little value. The climate here is tough on lumber products - hot in summer and wet in winter. The combined swelling and drying out processes require annual coating. Even at best effort the walking surfaces would last the most 5 years. Plastic lumber survives better and there are newer PVC-coated aluminum panels out now.

We resurfaced our deck several years ago with plastic lumber. Given the wet climate in Pacific Northwest wood products do not last. Last time I checked wood decking lumber was more than 40-50% higher than that of a year ago.

Built a new side deck with lumber last summer. I’m thinking if it keeps going up in value I may be able to tear it out and sell the lumber this summer for 50% more than I paid back than. :)
Certainly some “inflation psychology” evident with building products - despite the Fed’s admonition that it’s only “transitory”. What are they smokin?

@hank, thanks for the suggestion. I need to do more homework on this topic. Yes, PRNEX has been a sleeper for awhile since the old manager left.
Interesting that you mentioned real estate as it is a backdoor play on commodity. My REIT investment over the last several years has many ups and down (especially last year). Now it is racing ahead as it is expecting to return to pre-COVID period late this year.

@Sven said, “Other investment opportunities??”
Materials and energy are extremely volatile places to play. Very sensitive to the economy. As far as PRNEX goes, I’ve avoided it in recent years as just too erratic. It had a better manager many years ago than now I think. PRAFX is a cut above it and a bit less susceptible to the fortunes of the energy and equity markets. Folks shouldn’t overlook real estate in this area either. PRAFX typically allocates a substantial portion (30% or more) to real estate.
Currently I have only 7-8% allocated to my “real assets” sleeve. Down from 10% at the end of 2020. The three I hold in that sleeve: PRAFX, BRCAX, OPGSX. Suggest the last one only for those who enjoy walking over mine-fields. :)
(Earlier answer edited for brevity.)

We resurfaced our deck several years ago with plastic lumber. Given the wet climate in Pacific Northwest wood products do not last. Last time I checked wood decking lumber was more than 40-50% higher than that of a year ago. The pandemic does not help.
Other than T. Rowe Price New Era, PRNEX, I have not invested in other commodity funds/ETFs. PRNEX provides broad exposures to natural resources.
https://troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/PRNEX#content-portfolio
Other investment opportunities??

i own two bond funds OSTRX and WCPNX - im thinking of taking all the money out of OSTRX and adding it to WCPNX - but i wont make my decision til the end of the year. any comments on these funds would be very much appreciated. im not the brightest bulb on the tree when it comes to investing. i have made a lot of mistakes over the years.

I like WCPNX and own it. Very consistent for a core bond fund, and up this year as well. What's not to like?

Re: “Add Safety by Venturing Abroad”
Title’s a bit misleading. Try and find a prospectus for any foreign or global bond fund that doesn’t mention the increased risks of owning foreign bonds.
I’ve always allocated a small chunk to foreign bonds (5-10% of portfolio), mainly because I don’t trust the Fed and politicians to protect the buying power of the USD. Nice to have some foreign bonds just in case of a dollar rout. I’d hazard a guess that my foreign bond exposure over several decades has produced a somewhat better return than the domestic side has. But too many variables to pin down the advantage.
One variable is that more often than not your foreign bond fund is (fully or partially) hedged back to the U.S. dollar to reduce the volatility introduced by exchange rates. Another variable is the credit quality of the bonds owned. And a third is duration. Fees can be very high as well on foreign bond funds. A big variable is ability of manager to get the valuation / macro picture right and shift funds from country to country. TRP, IMHO, hasn’t been particularly successful at that over the years.
One fund I’ve owned before that doesn’t hedge back to the dollar is PRELX. But I haven’t been too impressed since it came out. Have been tempted to pick some up recently because it’s down a bit this year and probably due for some kind of rebound. However, a counter argument is that the EM bond market usually suffers when U.S. equity markets correct. So, it might be better to wait longer until the current U.S. stock euphoria wears thin.
An alternative to foreign bonds would be to invest directly in foreign currencies. Gets rid of interest rate risk. PRPFX does this to some degree and therefore benefits on days when the dollar is weak. Personally, about 10% of my portfolio is in DODLX. To be clear - this is a global bond fund, and often holds around 50% in domestic bonds, along with the international. The fund also dabbles a bit (5-10%) in the EM bond sector - adding incremental return without going off the reservation. With any bond fund, you want low fees, as fees consume a larger share of potential gains with bond funds. D&C does a decent job limiting expenses on all their funds.

@Baseball_Fan
Since everything is liquidated & in cash now, it would seem distribution should be straight forward & your figures seem about right unfortunately.
Also unfortunately, they are still recalculating NAV as of February 18 as well as all past NAVs for the past 2 years or more. So who knows what those numbers will be & when that distribution will occur.
And then there is the matter of "reserves".
This is their latest FAQ page dated April 8.
It might end up being more like a 50% loss, at least initially. But they did mention that there might be a second distribution as well.
Then there are the lawsuits- class action against the fund, Infinity Q Capital Management, and specific individuals responsible and also any potential lawsuit on behalf of the fund against Infinity Q Capital Management to recoup costs incurred through this whole process.
@wxman123
What SIPC Protects

SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins.
SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments.
It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the value of any security.

But there is at least one firm advertising to sue your broker if they recommended IQDAX.

For me now I'm 1/3 of my portfolio in cash, money markets or CDs earning anywhere from .5% to 3% (lucky 5 yr cd's bought a few years ago). I'm VERY conservative, but OK with that. I don't look at the cash as an emergency fund, just a guarantee not to get crushed in the next downturn. I cannot time the market.

As the cost of owning ABRTX surfaced in the course of discussion, I’ve linked a good summary of the types of expenses and fees mutual funds charge or pass-on and how they impact your bottom line. LINK
It’s generally recognized that (what I call) “boutique” funds will cost more to own. Specialized approaches like long/short and multi-strategy are more expensive to operate. Some of the added expense comes from having to pay interest on cash used to back short selling - if I understand correctly. However, I haven’t seen any of these funds that could justify an ER much north of 1.5%.
TMSRX is getting 1.29% after waivers. ABRZX (which I also own) gets 1.33%.
If a fund appears to be “compensating” investors for higher fees with an impressive total return, I’d suspect them of taking an inordinate amount of risk to do so - likely more risk than their investors realize.
Not aware of anyone here flogging TMSRX or other of these boutique funds. They have very limited appeal and only to certain types of investors. Generally they’re owned in an attempt to “balance out” or “offset” other riskier investments. Without viewing the portfolio in total, it’s hard to pass judgment on the wisdom of someone else owning such a fund. Additionally, some are using these as substitutes for the bond positions they held in prior years. A better question might be: Will these alternative funds outperform conventional bond funds going forward?

https://www.financial-planning.com/list/bond-funds-with-the-best-15-year-returns
Bond funds with the best 15-year returns
By Andrew Shilling
Managers behind fixed-income funds with the biggest long-term gains nearly double their peers. After a year marked by a global pandemic and near-zero rate environment, their shorter term returns were subsequently even more impressive.
The 20 top-performing bond funds of the past 15 years, with at least $100 million in assets under management, had an average gain of more than 7%, Morningstar Direct data show. Over the past 12 months, the same funds notched an average return of almost 18%.
When considering the bond-market landscape over the shorter timer, it may be hard to fathom the same success in the years to come, says Tom Bradley, managing director and head of capital markets at Miami-based fixed-income software vendor YieldX.
“Last year was an aggressive year for fixed-income performance with global central banks slashing rates as a result of COVID-19, and at the same time re-engaging in secondary market bond purchasing — the perfect combination for high-yield performance,” Bradley says. “Now that markets have plateaued and interest rates globally look grounded (possibly trending higher in the U.S.), fixed income will become a more nuanced sector to invest in as opposed to the ‘rising tide lifts all ships’ mantra of the last few years.”
Compared with broader markets, the iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG), which has a 0.04% net expense ratio, recorded a 15-year gain of just 4.23%, data show. Over the past year, the fund had a gain of 0.32%.
In stocks, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA) have had 15-year returns of 10.20% and 10.28%, respectively. In the past 12 months, SPY and DIA had gains of 50.29% and 45.30%. The funds have net expense ratios of 0.09% and 0.16%.
Morgan Stanley captures surge in retail investing thanks to timely E-Trade purchase
Despite record growth in wealth management, an otherwise rosy earnings report was marred by $911 million loss related to Archegos Capital.

While I like adding diversification, and my own portfolio is closer to Vanguard's target date fund's 30% foreign (per NYTimes article) than to 0%, it's not clear that one benefits substantially from this diversification.
I ran a PorfolioVisualizer comparison of a 47.3/52.7 mix of BNDX and BND (this is the current composition of BNDW - Vanguard Global Bond ETF) with BND, with MWTRX (mentioned in the article) and a baseline of IUSB (US total bond market including a smattering of junk bonds).
The analysis spans just over six years. The blend does a bit better than US IG only - marginally higher returns with marginally lower volatility; correspondingly, somewhat better Sharpe & Sortino ratios. But it is nearly identical to the MetWest core plus fund (down to the same 8% correlation with the US equity market).
The US bond market ETF does a bit better on return with a volatility closer to the blend and core plus funds than the more volatile US IG bond market. Though it correlates a bit more closely (15% coefficient of correlation) with the US equity market. That's still low correlation; some of the other bond funds correlate more closely with the equity market.
The only conclusion I draw from these numbers is that adding something to a US IG portfolio helps. But it isn't clear that foreign bonds help any more or less than a smattering of junk bonds.

One can tell the difference between reports by text writing programs (Mad Libs comes to mind) and living, breathing analysts. The automated reports have a superscript 'Q' appended. See, e.g. GPIOX. Compare that with a real research report, e.g. PRIDX.
The former seem to contain no information that I couldn't get out of a prospectus or M*'s own data tables. The latter I still find useful.
Several years ago (before automating anything) M* reduced the number of funds its analysts covered, and also increased the time between analyst reports on each fund. Having made the decision to reduce coverage, it had to decide which funds would still be covered. M* chose to continue covering the large, popular funds.
If you wish, call it a bias to drive ad sales, i.e. a bias to cover funds that more readers are interested in (as evidenced by dollars invested). As opposed to covering more interesting funds.
M* started its medalist rating system in 2011. Prior to that there had been Analyst Picks and Pans which seemed more reliable, perhaps because (a) the analysts were picking from a larger universe of covered funds and (b) they didn't try to slice and dice into three shiny colors.
IMHO M* was never any good at covering stocks. As far as fund information is concerned, I don't think there are better sources. Much of the fund information one finds on other sites is sourced from M*.

The usual boring statement, KISS for most: know your goals and risk tolerance, select asset allocation accordingly, make minimal changes, stay the course, stay invested.
Emergency fund: after your savings pass a certain amount (for us $50K+) we no longer have cash or emergency for over 2 decades and now in retirement.
Do I really need an emergency fund? not really, first I use credit cards, if I can't, I have several thousands in the bank. Beyond that I can sell my mutual funds and get the money within 2 days. Unless you buy illegal drugs or a ransom why would you have an emergency fund.
CASH: Do you really need cash, even a retiree? IMO, a retiree maybe need 3-6 months at most. Most/all retirees have a cash flow (from SS + distribution + pension + can sell something, what is so difficult to sell 3-4 times per year), in good time they can sell stocks and in bad times they can sell some bonds. Some of these bonds should be a ballast for stocks which means in market meltdown they will go up or have minimal losses.
CASH for trading: I never understood this concept and I'm a trader and not a typical investor. A typical investor have stocks+bonds. If stock go down and you want to buy more stocks, it's pretty east to sell some bonds and buy stocks, so why be in cash making almost nothing.
As a trader in the last 20+ years. When I was younger I just switched from lagging funds to better performing funds. The big change came around 2010 and planning for retirement when I added max loss allowed rule to protect my portfolio. Since then, I'm in the market about 98% and invested at 99+%(never cash). Only at extreme risk I'm out.
So, what % I do have now in cash? The usual, less than 1%, after all, I don't see extreme risk for months.

@little5bee-
Take everything on this MaxFunds site with a large grain of salt. Often they overstate the negative. However, for a worst case scenario , it’s an interesting place to look.
ABRTX Overall MaxFunds Score: 50% - Poor
Forecast: 1%
Best Case: 38%
Worst Case: -75%
Lipper gives ABRTX its highest rating (5) for “capital preservation”. However, that’s a backward looking grade - not a projection. While the chart looks steady, the fund’s been open less than 10 years. Why anyone would pay a 2.25% ER for any fund is beyond me.
I do use some funds that use derivatives heavily to hedge market risk or operate in the futures markets (ie ABRZX). With such funds, the integrity and demonstrated expertise of the manager become paramount. Without knowing much about this one, at a glance I’d agree with @Baseball_Fan that it looks dicey. Suggest you continue to investigate. :)

i own two bond funds OSTRX and WCPNX - im thinking of taking all the money out of OSTRX and adding it to WCPNX - but i wont make my decision til the end of the year. any comments on these funds would be very much appreciated. im not the brightest bulb on the tree when it comes to investing. i have made a lot of mistakes over the years.

PRSNX. Bonds in my portfolio = 51% of total. PRSNX = 21.55% of total portfolio. It is below the zero-line so far in 2021 by just a fraction. RELIABLE. Owned it for several years, now. Other bond funds in portfolio are RPSIX, at 22.46% of total. And PTIAX at 7.25% of total. PRWCX and BRUFX hold bonds, too. I have so far, regretted putting money into those three funds not for a moment.

I’ve long been convinced that there is a link between the end of Madoff’s scheme and the overwhelming popularity of index-fund investing in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It’s not simply that, as the Wall Street Journal theorized, people realized pricey money managers hadn’t seen what was coming. Nor was it merely that the regulators’ cursory investigations into Madoff’s fund left many dubious of all sorts of investments (and the officials tasked with overseeing them). Instead, Madoff demonstrated the lie that almost any savvy individual investor could produce steady gains in a way that nothing else could. By destroying the retirements and dreams of so many, he inadvertently performed a much-needed service.

I'm not so convinced. Outside the realm of the ultra-rich, Madoff was hardly known before the scandal because it was an exclusive hedge fund. Meanwhile, Bogle was already practically a household name by the time of the scandal. I would say the growth of no load funds and fee-only/fee-based financial advisers had more to do with the shift to indexing. Instead of selling high cost active management with a commission or load based fund, advisers were charging a percentage of asset fee, typically 1%. Combine that fee with a high cost active fund charging 1.5% and you've got a 2.5% drag on returns each year. A 0.05% index fund combined with the 1% was far more palatable and produced better results. The whole advice model has shifted dramatically.
Any bull market of course will drive investors to index too, and of course Bogle's own presence, his constant evangelizing and having the numbers to back it up. If there was any fund's fall that might have done more harm to active manager's influence on retail investors it would be Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value when it got completely crushed during the 2008-09 crisis after 15 straight years of beating the market. He was one of the last great heroes of active management in the retail world. Who by contrast in retail-land heard of Madoff before everyone who had heard of him lost their shirts?