A side by side comparison of the 3 above mentioned funds would show a similar “average” track over the past 3 years. Looks like by combining RPGAX and PBDIX you’d arrive at a return near that of TMSRX and a roughly similar degree of volatility.
Umm ... Why are we doing a performance comparison for a fund barely 3 years old? I’d argue anything can happen over such a short period. As far as fees go, TMSRX engages in short sales of securities - a CYA tactic against steep equity losses. Funds that engage in shorting typically have higher costs due to borrowing cash to cover the shorts. At one time they were able to hide those costs inside a fund’s operating costs, but SEC regs a couple decades back required those to be shown in the ER - hence an elevated ER. As a relatively new fund, fees for TMSRX are probably higher now than what TRP will eventually establish as assets grow. (Getting to the front of the line sometimes costs extra.)
PBDIX* is, of course, a plain vanilla intermediate term investment grade bond index fund with relatively low fees. I owned it during 2020, but unloaded it early this year in favor of shorter duration funds. RPGAX is a global balanced fund with an added 10% hedge fund exposure. Its managers do apply some interesting defensive tactics using derivatives. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re shorting something (likely a bond or equity index), but would expect that to be in substantially lesser proportion and less frequently applied than what TMSRX does.
“Fond of TMSRX”? - All things are relative. I’d put it differently. TMSRX is a refuge for those “not fond” of either equity or fixed income valuations today. It’s a defensive fund.
Disclosure: TMSRX represents 16-17% of portfolio.
* Fund ticker symbol (PBDIX) was initially incorrect. Have corrected.
-
Here’s a tool that lets you run side by side comparisons of up to 5 funds for periods of 1, 3 or 5 years. It allows you to play around with time period covered as well as looking at both a linear graph and a side by side table comparison. Clicking “performance” pulls up a linear graph. One of the better tools I’ve come across and what I used in comparing the funds under discussion.
https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/us/compare

I have no idea but I think the Frenchman kinda did a Barry Sanders (Detroit Lions)...just decided he had enough and is moving on.
Of course Sanders arguably was on the top of his game and arguably next to #34 Walter was amongst the greatest running backs in the NFL.
I just hope it was his decision and not some outside influence or other negative occurrence that caused the shut down. Was kind of weird that the other guy stepped away several months ago and now this. You get the feeling that in the coming years a fund like IVWIX would have greatly outperformed after some recent underperformance. Always darkest before dawn...
Best,
Baseball Fan

Along these lines...inflation talk...anyone want to surmise a guess what I Bonds will reset to come May 1st? Do you think combined rate will be over 2% (at 1.68% now)...over 2.5%?? I think this will be the best investment going forward maybe for the next 10 years...I Bonds...maybe?
I think the largest inflation we are going to experience going forward will be two fold: tax inflation up the ying yang and shrinkage inflation...have you bought a box of cereal lately...lordy, lordy, Tather Murphy's turning forty....it seems the jumbo box has turned into a single serve packet overnight!
Gas over 3 bucks a gallon...we're just getting started with inflation...any thoughts on the ETF INFL??
Best,
Baseball Fan

@Sven: I have the largest slice of our assets with TIAA because of my employment. My current plan is to move what’s now with Schwab and TDA to a brokerage account at TIAA so that my family will have only one wealth manager to deal with when I can’t or don’t want to be involved. I’ve been with the same advisor there for some 20 years, so I feel comfortable my heirs will be in good hands. Our arrangement will resemble moving into a retirement community that provides various levels of care starting with fully independent living and ending with that stage I don’t want to contemplate.
@hank’s comments on the various TRP funds/strategies are right on. At this point, I’m using TMSRX as an alternative to cash and to part of what might normally be bonds for me. PTIAX remains, IOFAX is gone, and the remaining non-equity money is destined for one or two allocation funds, surely with TRP. I doubt I’d know of these options without MFO and its skilled commentators for which I’m grateful.

@davidmoran- about 3 or 4 years ago- a long river cruise on a small boat through France and then a week or so over on the Italian Ligurian coast. Wonderful trip, for sure. Fortunately the virus was not really debilitating- just enough to knock me off my pace for a couple of weeks, and the trip on the rivers was pretty restful and easygoing physically.
OJ

Several years ago it was @msf who brought the difference to my attention.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/129057/#Comment_129057
It would be instructive to compare the two equivalent funds of the same year and see the % difference. Also there is an institutional series of TDF that requires $1M minimum to invest. They are for business retirement accounts and pension fund.
TIAA is a good company for teacher retirement accounts. We use Vanguard index funds to invest for our kids 529 college funds. It is the power of compounding of invested $ that help us to achieve our goal. Same goal here to invest for retirement using T. Rowe Price.
As we age we would like to reduce the complexicity of managing the portfolio by embracing target dated funds. When our mental capacity is reduced at later part of our lives, TDF would be very helpful to achieve our goal.

TMSRX doesn't appeal to me, at first glance. I don't even know what TRP lists as being contained in its portfolio. But M* (my handy go-to) shows a single item. Feels like a "black box" to me. I'm glad to hear from you all. Being a rank amateur, I don't like to get fancy. To my mind, the advantage to RPGAX is its global reach. Yet I see not much at all in the portfolio that will benefit from small-cap successes. I suppose I'm already certain to hold onto smid-international PRIDX. My small-cap exposure is 11% of total. In the US, it isn't even 3% of my total. PRDSX.
I've always, since I started investing, managed to paint myself into a corner. What I mean is: I started with a small stake from an inheritance, but after that, my stuff grew minutely, in baby-steps over time, with each paycheck. Wanting the tax advantage, virtually all of it went into my 403b. (I was lucky to be able to self-direct that baby.). I never had any stash in a standard, taxable account that I could rearrange freely. For years, I've resisted using an agent that can very easily move money around for me, like Jones or Schwab or the others. Now I'm fully committed to the "KISS" Principle, while babysitting the portfolio myself.

"There is relatively little airflow forward and backward between rows, making it less likely to spread respiratory particles between rows."
Did you read any of the responses to that article? For instance, this one:

"As a ventilation engineer with 40+ years experience in exposure control (including biohazard labs) I find the assertion that general ventilation on an aircraft - as opposed to local exhaust - will effectively control close quarter exposure to "droplets" (or, more technically correct, an aerosol from coughing, sneezing or talking) is questionable."

On our last trip to Europe the guy behind me was coughing and hacking for 5000 miles. There was "relatively" enough airflow to do me in. Took me one day to come down with his virus and three weeks to recover. Don't even talk to me about the wonderful ventilation systems on planes.

Good post @bee.
Not mentioned in the excerpt is how unfair the pandemic has been to lower income Americans who weren’t able to work from home and many of whom don’t participate in the stock market. Yet, they have endured the disease and suffering to a greater extent than the better-off along with being hit with the rising prices for food and essentials.
What they say about pent-up demand is true. Took just 6 days after the 2nd Pfizer injection to book a flight to a warmer climate. Hear similar stories from others - some booking trips on faith before even being vaccinated. Airfares are likely to go to the sky. I have several big home maintenance jobs due - some deferred earlier out of concerns about having workers inside during worst of the pandemic. Very concerned about a looming labor shortage and higher labor / materials costs.
Your excerpt implies we might be in for a 10-year romp akin to the 20s. Of course, there are some differences. My Accord Hybrid gets much better mileage than did Gatsby’s Rolls Royce. Also, in his day gas was something like 20 cents a gallon. 10 more years of rising stock prices? A bit too much to expect - unless a “bubble inside of bubble” develops. Could happen.

US Global Investor - Investor Weekly:

A little over a hundred years ago, the United States emerged from the double whammy of a world war and deadly pandemic. Eager to get back to “normal” life, Americans went on a decade-long spending splurge, buying cars and radios and stocks.
Although we all know how it ended, the Roaring Twenties was largely a product of pent-up demand.
This summer, I believe we could see the start of a similar demand-driven economic boom as millions of Americans, newly vaccinated and $1,400 richer, make up for lost time by booking flights and vacations, going on cruises, visiting family out of state and more.
As I shared with you earlier this month, close to $18 trillion sit in Americans’ savings accounts right now—a record amount. Much of this cash is just waiting to be unleased into the U.S. economy.

https://usfunds.com/investor-library/investor-alert

Excellent articles thank you for posting!
Do wonder the models account for crazy investing manias which we def have now, potential huge war on our turf, we mess with the wrong folks we'd most def see missle rain on our turf or em pulse knocking out our infrastructure and regardless will we experience extreme socialism where we are headed, that won't be good for stonks
I would think all bets are off and then the question will be can we cross borders with our wealth
Also how much more impact will bitcoin have? Will it turn into the place to be or another investing farce?
With advances in genetics do you need to push the curve out to 55, 60 years??
Good health and good luck to all
Baseball Fan

Thanks @ davidmorn
I am also intrigued by Pfau's & Kitces studies that suggest:

In a world where the conventional wisdom is that retirees should reduce their equity exposure throughout retirement as their time horizon shortens, this research suggests that in reality, the ideal may actually be the exact opposite.

and,

if the portfolio is depleted too severely by withdrawals and bad returns in the early years, there won’t be enough (or any) money left for when the good returns finally arrive. And notably, the truly dire situations are not merely severe market crashes that occur shortly after retirement, but instead the extended periods of “merely mediocre” returns that last for more than a decade, which are far too long to “wait out” just using some cash and intermediate bond buckets. Conversely, when the equity glidepath is rising and the retiree adds to equities throughout retirement (and/or especially in the first half of retirement), then by the time the market reaches a bottom and the next big bull market finally begins, equity exposure is greater and the retiree can participate even more!

I have often thought...
Own retirement date funds (that have a glide path) towards initial retirement (your retirement date) and then re-cast these "retirement date " funds out over your retirement horizon in increments that maximize a SWR, Portfolio Duration (You do not want to have a chance of failing after only 10 years if you are planning for 50 years), and Terminal Value.
Here's a link to Kitces discussion on the topic:
https://kitces.com/blog/should-equity-exposure-decrease-in-retirement-or-is-a-rising-equity-glidepath-actually-better/

SOR looks like a reasonable alternative for FPACX if you're interested in a different fund from the same management team. As such it's somewhat similar, and has a fair coefficient of correlation (0.72, meaning an R² of 0.52), per Portfolio Visualizer.
FPACX vs. SOR chart over lifetime of FPACX
One (SOR) holds 43 stocks, the other 56 (both as of Dec 31, per M*). One (SOR) is 35% in US stocks, the other 50%. One (SOR) is short 5% in cash (still net 12% positive), the other isn't shorting but is long 21% in cash. Same management, same investment space, yes. Clones or near copies, no.
The 8% discount is the lowest discount in 3 years, looking at the 3 year graph at CEFConnect (click on "pricing", then select the graph's 3 year tab). Its one year Z score is 1.96, its six month score is 3.54. I'm not a closed end fund investor, so I can't suggest what time frame is best to look at, but this doesn't strike me as a good time to buy if what you're looking at is the size of the discount.
M* (via Fidelity) writes: "In our opinion, a z-score of less than -2 signals that a fund is relatively inexpensive, and a z-score greater than +2 signals that a fund is relatively expensive."
On the topic of discounts, just as a discount boosts the effective yield of a bond fund, it also boosts the effective expense ratio of a fund. That 0.97% ER is 0.97% of NAV. Since you'd be purchasing at an 8% discount, the effective ER for you would be 0.97%/0.92 = 1.05%. That's the same ER as FPACX according to M* if you exclude borrowing costs. (Some people think this is more meaningful, many do not.)
If you like SOR, that's fine, go for it. But don't do it as an attempt to buy an FPACX clone and save a few bucks in the process.

As of 12/31/2020, the largest holding of BRSVX was GameStop. Not a stock I would expect John Montgomery to buy, but what do I know? M* claims the stock has gained 6,500% over the previous year. My experience with Bridgeway funds was that some years are blowouts and others the obverse.

I picked US News as only an example that supported some of the SCV funds identified above. I could have picked another example such as:
https://mutualfunds.com/equity-categories/us-small-cap-value-equity-funds-and-etfs/
or something else for that matter, but I did not.
It was not intended that US News should be used as the final say on one's investment decision. I hope each and every reader/op does their own homework before they invest.
PVFIX, based on the M* information as of 2/28/21, was 7.31% YTD and in the 100% rank category. However, the trailing total return, as of 3/11/21 was 13.27% not 7.31%. The fund started to slowly increase as of March 5. Incidentally, Pinnacle's website states that is performance YTD is 12.60% - http://www.pinnaclevaluefund.com/performance.aspx
Are there better SCV funds? Sure, but the OP asked for other possibilities for consideration.
Also, with the exception of several standout small cap growth funds, there seems to be a resurgence in the SCV arena that has been out of favor for past several years (which is why I mentioned short/long term objective). BRSIX, BRUSX and others have seen some significant percentage of increases in 2021, but it is still early. For example, as of 3/11/21, the YTD total trailing return for BRUSX was 37.31%; BRSIX was 41.73% and BRSVX was 48.02% (I picked on Bridgeway as an example). Even WSCVX's total trailing return was 29.46% YTD as of 3/11/21. I am sure there are other SCV funds that have performed as comparably as well.
I have been investing in BRUSX and PRSVX for the last several years when SCV was out of favor; I am finally seeing the fruits of my long term investing perseverance.

You were done with this discussion when you suggested that all one needed to know about a source (here, US News) is that they listed as their top fund one that had only one top decile performance in the past eleven years. Seriously.
I accepted this. I merely observed that it seems to apply equally to you.
Back fill all you want about how wonderful your fund is. None of that changes anything. It doesn't address the innuendo you directed at US News.
As you know, funds earn those stars on past, actual performance
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. On what basis does US News calculate fund scores? Never mind - an issue already raised and ducked by changing the subject.
Finally, lest anyone think I am defending US News' methodology, I reiterate: "I agree ... that the US News rankings are not worth more than a quick glance."

You were done with this discussion when you suggested that all one needed to know about a source (here, US News) is that they listed as their top fund one that had only one top decile performance in the past eleven years. Seriously.
I accepted this. I merely observed that it seems to apply equally to you.
Back fill all you want about how wonderful your fund is. None of that changes anything. It doesn't address the innuendo you directed at US News.
As you know, funds earn those stars on past, actual performance
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. On what basis does US News calculate fund scores? Never mind - an issue already raised and ducked by changing the subject.
Finally, lest anyone think I am defending US News' methodology, I reiterate: "I agree ... that the US News rankings are not worth more than a quick glance."

RE: US News Rankings...
You really don't need to go any further than looking at their #1 ranked SCV fund, DFFVX.
...
Seriously, ONCE in the Top Ten percentile in 11 years, and it's magically the #1 ranked SCV fund?
...
Kind of reminds me of some of the old stock "Supervised Lists" from back in the 80's, some of which required the company to fund the inclusion of their stock on the list, if you get my drift

US News runs third party numbers through its algorithm to produce its rankings. In this sense it's similar to M*'s star ratings, except M* doesn't exclusively use third party data, so M* has a small but non-zero ability to jigger its figures.
No magic involved, just formulas. Speaking of M*, it gives DFFVX a sliver rating. That's prospective. Could you explain to us what US News' rankings are supposed to represent? If one is going to appreciate your critique, it would help to know what it is you're critiquing.
" for my money in the SCV cat...FCPVX and/or RYOFX"
Seriously, ONCE in the Top Ten percentile in 11 years, and for your money FCPVX is one of your top two SCV funds?
I agree with you that the US News rankings are not worth more than a quick glance. But that's because it's easy to take half a dozen pot shots at how they're computed, not because I necessarily disagree with the results.

@BenWP,
I also invested in ARTYX several years ago since i have previously invested with Mr. Kaufman when he managed Thornburg Developing World. The tech-heavy portion of the fund was impacted by the rising bond yield. Tech tend to do well in low interest rate environment but bonds become competitive in higher interest rate environment. Thus, I pair ARTYX with TRP Emerging Discovery fund that have more weighing in the value camp. There are other options too at Matthews as you indicated. Growth & Income and Dividend are good options. Bond settled a bit this week but I like to spread out the risk on EM. I am now watching the treasury yield more closely now. Friday’s yield has moved up and NASDAQ drops.
The big unknown is how high and how fast the yield increase will be this year as the Fed tackles inflation.
@catch22, thank you for the clarification. I am too learning more about bitcoin and cryptocurrency. Interesting note is that Fidelity does not have access to Bitcoin.

@BenWP, interesting observation on EM. For now I stay put and watch the treasury yield as it is settling down this week. Read earlier that 10 years treasury will reach much higher than 1.5% by year end if inflation is rising. Nevertheless I am just watching ARK etfs. Have you considering the more value oriented EM funds instead of the growth type? They have been very volatile lately.
@catch22, no bitcoins here as I don't understand the risk and reward aspect enough.