You guys all "got my back." I appreciate it. I've thought this through. BIAWX is just a start. I've mentioned the reason, above: very low minimum to get in. Of course, I'd not be thinking in terms of BIAWX if it were not a good performer. But since the market is nearly at an all-time high, we will be slowly dollar-cost-averaging into it. I will be a joint account holder along with him and his mother, so there's no question about the fund(s) accepting my checks. Ridiculous rules, these days. Criminals do bad stuff, so now we have the tail wagging the dog. But he will get the tax statements. That's my own rule--- given the fact that I'll be contributing. He won't be making much money for some years to come. (Community College, then probably further.) If he's still a dependent on his mother's tax return, so be it. I have an allocation fund in mind for "down the line"--- whether it's global or domestic. ...Tweedy Brown TBGVX just came to mind. I'm gonna add that one the list list you've all provided. And I'm going to feed a joint BANK or CU account out there as the piggy-bank from which I will take the money to be able to get him into the additional fund, later on. Could or should it be an IRA? Yes. ... All of this will be initiated next week: wifey and I are Hawaii-bound for a week, for his H.S. graduation.

PRFDX was hot out of the gate in the 90s (inception 1985). Talk of the fund community for several years and highly prized by investors. So hot that manager Brian Rogers became a regular on Wall Street Week. Seems to have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the way - though value has been out of favor for years. Not that it’s a bad fund. It isn’t. But hasn’t lived up to the earlier high expectations. I haven’t observed anything outstanding from the fund in near 20 years compared with some of Price’s other offerings. (But perhaps I haven’t looked hard enough.)
Back to Rogers - He retired 2 years ago (2017). Here’s a brief blurb published prior to his retirement.
BRIAN C. ROGERS
Brian, 61, joined T. Rowe Price as a portfolio manager in 1982 and is currently chairman of the Board and chief investment officer. Previously, he served as portfolio manager of the U.S. Large-Cap Equity Income Strategy and the Equity Income Fund for 30 years, beginning with their inception in 1985. From 1994 to 2003 Brian was the first manager of the U.S. Value Equity Strategy and the Value Fund, and he was a founding member of the team managing the U.S. Large-Cap Value Equity Strategy from 2000 to 2015. He was elected to the firm's Board of Directors in 1997, joined the Management Committee in 2003, and was named Board chair in 2007. https://troweprice.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/t-rowe-price-chairman-and-cio-brian-rogers-retire-march-2017

@Derf @hank
If one plucked down "x" dollars, buy and hold on Oct. 30, 2007; the below percentages are total return for the period through May 16, 2019.
Same chart layout as last post, but with a start date of Oct. 30, 2007; which is very close to multiple equity market tops before the big melt of Sept., 2008.
Total returns for this period, buy and hold.
--- QQQ = 278%
--- FSPHX = 276%
--- FDGRX = 228%
--- VPMCX = 198%
--- FCNTX = 168%
--- SPY = 138%
Another observation. Same funds chart, but from Oct. 30, 2007 to Jan. 2013.
Imagine an investor deciding to invest $100,00 on Oct. 30, 2007, and vowed to be brave and bold enough to ride the equity markets through 2020, when some of the money would aid in retirement.
They sweat a bit as they find their portfolio value dip going into the end of 2007. But, about half way into 2008, things are looking better. Then early September tests their braveness, to be further tested into the end of the year and the spring of 2009. Going into the end of March, 2009, the worst appears to be past. The equity markets move along and slightly upward through the rest of 2009, 2010 and then the middle of 2011 finds another portfolio whack as the credit rating of the U.S. is downgraded. Eventually, a bit more positive travel for the remainder of 2011 and 2012.
However, take a peek at the returns after a little more than 5 years.
I suspect these are the types of experiences that find folks leaving equity investing and not returning.
Five years can be a very long time to watch one's money travel such a path.
Chart here
Have a good remainder,
Catch

Re: Buying down - I’ve done this before. It’s always a big gamble. Worked to an extent in the ‘07-‘09 slide. The biggest mistake was to start averaging back out of the riskier stuff on the way up as early as I did. But, overall, it worked this time around. I did this again during the energy rout 3 or 4 years back. Stomach wrenching to keep buying into that bottomless pit as oil fell from over $100 to $26. Did OK in the end. But not worth the agony.
Would I do it (buy down) again? No. Does it work every time? No. Full stock market recovery from the ‘29-‘33 debacle took many years (plus a world war). Japan’s market still isn’t back to where it was in the late 90s. Buying down shouldn’t be confused with rebalancing. As long as there’s a methodology behind it (ie twice yearly) rebalancing is a good idea. Does tend to make you sell high and buy low.
This post was edited for brevity.

This 466% number includes the additional contributions people have made into these plans over the past decade. Without that inclusion the gains in value would have been lower. I’m wondering, too, if it includes self-directed 401Ks which provide a tax haven to the very rich and have much higher contribution limits. These would have grown disproportionately to the 401Ks most wage earners have. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jrose/2018/07/17/the-1-account-all-wealthy-people-have-that-you-probably-dont/
I think more needs to be done here to try and differentiate how much of this increased wealth went to the small investor (typically working a 9-5 shift) and how much of it actually reflects gains at the upper end of the income level (perhaps the top 10 or 20% of the population). I fear digging deeper might only serve to demonstrate the growing wealth disparity among the population over the past decade.
All that said ... the domestic equity markets are up something like 300-400% since the bottom almost exactly 10 years ago, March 9, 2009. (Seems to me the DJI got close to 6500.) So, assuming all participants remained 100% in equities in their 401 K plans, the numbers have a semblance of reality. I doubt that’s the case however. Most diversify. Some borrow from plans. Some types of investments lag the S&P, etc.
-
@Derf - Good question. Here’s some crude calculations (from a non-math guy): Broad U.S equity markets fell around 50% during the bear market (‘07-‘09). So I’ll start by cutting in half a $100 401K balance. That leaves $50 by the time the bear ended. Than I’ll multiply the remaining balance by 466% to reflect its growth over the next decade. That results in a gain of 233% on the original investment (including new contributions) from just before the crash to roughly the present (a 12 year period). The resultant average gain in value is 19%.( But with compounding factored in it would be less.)

FYI: When insurance company MassMutual spent $150 million to acquire OppenheimerFunds almost 30 years ago, it could not have known how stunningly successful the investment would turn out to be. Now it’s on the verge of executing another transaction — one that reflects the more difficult reality that asset managers are facing today.
Regards,
Ted

My understanding of tariffs is that they are instituted to protect local industries (not working too well for farmers and several others currently) or to reduce trading with undesired or misbehaving partners (as Jefferson attempted with Great Britain when impressment of sailors and confiscation of American merchantmen was a major issue). The latter didn't work too well either, but fortunately the Napoleonic War ended.
Since there are other purveyors who can supply commodities, the tariffs applied on them by China may reduce our markets for years.
Probably the most useful tariffs would be on electronics, even though I suspect manufacturing would only move to India or Viet Nam (but I would prefer India to profit instead of China - they are sort of a democracy), since it seems that the electronics manufacturing that returns to the US is largely robotic. If we could only get it all moved to Taiwan, it would be temporarily more secure (I hope). I don't update my cell phone often, so I think I'd be willing to pay $200 more for one made in the US from a reputable company. Apple has made enough billions on the backs of cheap Chinese labor; and all they seem to do is charge top tier prices while keeping their profits off shore.
I do agree that keeping Chinese and Russian (Kaspersky, for example) electronic industries from access to US networks is wise, but that horse may be already out of the barn.
I presume at some point, victory will be declared and the status quo resumed, but Brazil will sell more soybeans and China will sell more electronics and utilize more US-developed technology.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-average-401-k-soared-466-over-the-past-10-years-194608825.html
Fidelity’s latest quarterly retirement savings update had something special to celebrate the 10-year anniversary of “the bottom.”
Keep buying...

@Charles: I think we should give a shout-out to Dian Vujovich and her website allaboutfunds.com. I'e been getting this Lipper info from her site for years.
Regards,
Ted

@hank et al
The below chart is for the etf EEM beginning Oct. 31, 2007. I used this date, as this is near top + or - a week or two for a lot of equities worldwide; prior to the full market melt in 2008. The total return for EEM during this period (through May 13) is -7.9%.
Note: the chart set only to May 9 at -5.3%; but -7.9% is correct through May 13
EEM total return chart (Oct. 31, 2007 through May 13, 2019)
Disclosure: we have not held any emerging markets equity for diversification; but have held EM bonds 6-10 years back.
ADD: FNMIX during this same time frame had a total return of +108%
The above(s) examples are with the consideration of buy and hold, beginning Oct. 31, 2007.

Lipper has SFGIX 78% Asia. But at least half of that is in Taiwan, Hong Kong Singapore and S. Korea, all of which are considered developed markets. I also noticed unusually heavy concentration at the top (37% in top 10 holdings). http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_tNYDpo1qU/MLQg9W+6KX6RuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLcFNPvJvJFoMad8BeSVDYky
Interesting name (Growth and Income). Price’s TRIGX was called G&I until maybe 5 years ago when they dropped that description and renamed it a “value” fund. When I looked at its 1-year performance, it’s done far worse than SFGIX with more than a 13% loss. But it never was a good performer. (TRIGX is concentrated in Europe.)
International have lagged U.S. equities for a while. One reason has been the very strong Dollar. While I like to hedge against the Dollar, I do it using less volatile EM and global bond funds. As far as being an EM in disguise, it’s hard to say. Even non-EM international funds usually dabble in EM. Sometimes that exposure can be “unlimited” per Prospectus.
No opinion on whether you should buy, sell, hold this one. Generally after I sell a fund it bounces back with outperformance. The financial media is hot with stories of how the EM markets stand to lose big in the Trump trade war. Again, by the time you and I hear this type news it’s likely already been discounted by the markets.

Morning @MikeM
I enjoyed your humor and understand. I'm sure everyone here has had the add-on symbol of WTF for various holdings over the years. Not that we have necessarily made a bad decision; but other forces beyond our control get in the way of our well thought plans.
A non advertised benefit of MFO and the discussion board is "investment therapy" sessions.
Outside of MFO, and the WTF notation; my greatest frustration over the years is attempting to motivate those I know well to invest. I'm sure our breed of investor is a very small percentage of the public.
But, I'm drifting off the subject of your post; and will stop here.
Take care,
Catch

Lastly, I couldn't find a specific listing for the symbol, WTF

I've had a lot of funds with this symbol over the years @catch22, as in WTF did I buy this fund for :)
A few things going on in my head I guess. One is a post from a few weeks ago with the question, do you really need an EM fund? The other is the performance record for SFGIX over the past 3+ years. On the positive side, it is a tamer way to play the EM category if you choose to be there. That plus the managers thoughtful approach to capital protection IS why I bought it.
Oh, well, just thinking out loud. Thanks for the discussion.

@Derf: Apparently the EM index is 74% Asia. Here's SFGIX, showing its benchmark alongside the fund's holdings (scroll down to "World Regions"):
Benchmark
And here's EEM, the MSCI index, corroborating the 74%:
EEM (EM index fund)
I recall the index as being in the 60s a few years back (haven't owned an EM equity fund in a while), so Asia's expanded.
There are different ways to parse what's EM and what's not, tho. Maybe the more developed east Asian nations skew the proportion if they're included in the count; I don't have Premium, so can't check the country-by-country list of the EM benchmark on M*, but the main portfolio page does show 25% developed Asian economies (per M*, apparently) in the "diversified EM" benchmark.

Here’s how TRP describes PRWCX : “The fund invests primarily in the common stocks of established U.S companies we believe to have above-average potential for capital growth. Common stocks typically constitute at least half of total assets. The remaining assets are generally invested in other securities, including convertible securities, corporate and government debt, foreign securities, and futures and options.” https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/PRWCX
Here’s how they describe RPBAX: “The fund seeks to provide capital growth, current income, and preservation of capital through a portfolio of stocks and fixed-income securities. The fund normally invests approximately 65% of total assets in U.S. and foreign common stocks and 35% in fixed-income securities. At least 25% of total assets will be invested in senior fixed-income securities.” https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/RPBAX
Here’s how they describe RPGAX: “The fund seeks to invest in a broadly diversified global portfolio of investments, including U.S. and international stocks, bonds, and alternative investments. The fund uses an active asset allocation strategy in conjunction with fundamental research to select individual investments ... Under normal conditions, the fund's portfolio will consist of approximately 60% stocks; 30% bonds, money market securities, and other debt instruments; and 10% alternative investments.” https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/RPGAX
While it’s common to refer to PRWCX as a balanced fund, Price’s RPBAX would appear to better fit that description. And RPGAX at first blush also appears to be more accurately termed a balanced fund. However, with RPGAX Price’s approach seems to point more in the direction of an equity-centric hedge fund, employing various hedging strategies (and also investing in an outside party hedge fund).
I’m not sure what to call PRWCX. It does have some similarities to a balanced fund, but Price assigns it more of a “go-anywhere” mandate. Seems to me that over the 25 years I’ve owned it, different managers have taken it in quite different directions. Each has been successful in his own way. It’s my fourth largest holding at TRP. RPGAX, RPSIX and TMSRX are all ahead of it. That has everything to do with my overall allocation approach and isn’t a reflection of which fund I think is better. If I had to guess 10-15 years out, however, I’d guess RPGAX might outdistance it.

Doesn't make sense to me to leave a very successful fund manager because he's getting older. Why not let performance guide you? There has been no drop off there. Rank in category, 7 in past 3 years, 2 in past 1 year, per M*.

Mr. Akre has a good reputation of training successors; i would not be too worried at this point.
FYI: I have a significant amount invested in AKRIX/AKREX.

Maybe that's not the point. I took my money and ran from AKREX few years back. Manager age is a concern to me. I'm not sure about what "track record" he has of training replacement managers. The fact is one of them left.
All I can hope for existing investors is Akre does not end up like Third Avenue.

Glad to stay away from someone who mix politics with investment. Not only it detracts from his main duty to his investors and it shows as the performance lags badly several years in a row.

FYI: ( Unfortunately, PRWCX is closed to new investors.)
Hi, I'm Jason Kephart, senior analyst on Morningstar's Multi-Asset and Alternatives Research Team, and I'm joined today by David Giroux, portfolio manager of T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation, a fund that's been on a Joe DiMaggio-like streak over the last decade. It hasn't finished worse than 29th in the category over any single year over the last 10 years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/928989/the-sector-powering-t-rowe-price-capital-appreciat.html
M* Snapshot: PRWCX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PRWCX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot PRWCX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/prwcx
PRWCX Is Ranked #6 In The(50/70 E) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/allocation-50-to-70-equity/t-rowe-price-capital-appreciation-fund/prwcx

I appreciate the thoughtful analysis from the above posts. Sadly, I invested in this fund the day it opened. I was a Mutual Series investor from the 80s. Wintergreen Fund looked like an opportunity to get Michael Price like talent at the beginning of his run. It had a great first year and it went downhill from there. (I never understood why he thought he could push Coke around). I gave up and sold the fund two years ago. A great investor will make money in any type of market, no matter his style. Peter Lynch did. Michael Price did. David Winters didn’t.