@Sven,
I’ll try to locate my earlier source / reference on the derivative strategy sometimes used by PRWCX. It may take a day or so to dig that up. But it was primarily a strategy to generate income using stocks in some type of mutually beneficial contract with another party. The buyer of the option received a chance for upside potential should the stock increase in value. In return, PRWCX sacrificed some (or all?) of the stock’s upside potential in return for downside protection plus income. It was first mentioned 5-7 years ago by Giroux in a fund report. I haven’t read his reports recently. But just glanced at one tonight. While I can’t answer your question directly at the moment, how’s this excerpt (from Giroux) for honesty? It’s from the December 31, 2018 Annual Report for PRWCX. (It sounds like he’s being taken to “the woodshed” - and yet has nothing IMHO to apologize for.)
“We were disappointed in our investments in industrials, such as Middleby, a manufacturer of commercial food service equipment and high-end residential kitchen equipment. We bought it because the valuation and stock price had come down, management had a very good long-term track record on M&A, and, given higher labor costs at restaurants in a tight labor market, we felt that Middleby’s sales would benefit from a movement to substitute equipment for labor. From a process perspective, we made multiple errors that we do not intend to make again. First, we bought the stock without having met management. Assessing the quality of a management team is a very important part of our investment process. Second, earnings quality had deteriorated, with free cash flow conversion to net income dropping below 100%. Third, while capital allocation had been positive over the long run, recent acquisitions in the high-end residential kitchen equipment space had performed poorly.
“With GE, we started buying the stock right after the announcement that Larry Culp would become CEO. We bought too much too quickly given the risk profile of the company, and this hurt returns in 2018. We believe in GE and its new CEO and consider their aviation and health care businesses to be fundamentally solid. However, the initial position size should have been smaller, and we should have built the position more slowly. Again, we hope to avoid these mistakes in the future.”
https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/m_document.asp?clientid=trowepll&fundid=77954M105&docid=2205655&doctype=ann&docdate=20181231&back=1

Putting everything into their perspectives - being cheap is relative. If the prolong scenario plays out these stocks can continue to slide lower. That is the risk of investing in EM. It is best to have either long horizon (20+ years or longer) or hire a skillful money manager.

@Edmond, my opinion is EM is one of the categories where returns will be better with a managed fund. Just my opinion, but also everything I've read agrees with that thought. Actual results will only be known 20 years from now.
My biggest argument when considering my own portfolio right now (being 65) is do I even need an EM fund. I hold SFGIX because I believe it is the least volatile approach to EM investing. But frankly, I don't believe SFGIX will outperform FMIJX (my 1 international fund) in most any time frame over 3 years.

That is a very interesting quote.
I don't have an interest in a portfolio manager who is happy to invest a lot of his AUM in China, but then (perhaps in a second of candor) seems to be agnostic as to the possibility of a crash in Chinese equities.
If one TRULY has a 20-year time horizon and is unconcerned about equity crashes, why not just invest passively? -- An investor can passively endure equity crashes without paying a useless management fee. For 20 years.

So a while back, Foster wrote an article saying that for a ~ 20 year horizon people need to load up on Chinese equities (or something along those lines). So that may dictate where him and his team will be investing. I know that FPIVX (not an EM dedicated fund) bought a lot of Brazilian equities a little while ago. Just an FYI. I hold both SFGIX, SFVLX and FPIVX. Foster also mentioned that if China does crash, then people (again with a 20 year horizon) should buy even more Chinese equities.

When something looks too good to be true (here, that's similar long term performance for 100% stocks or 60/40 mix, and even better for 70/30), one has to ask what's going on. Either something new has been uncovered or something has been hidden (inadvertently or not).
For the past 40 years, yields have been declining. So bonds have benefited from both appreciation (as yields drop, prices increase) and higher yields than now. At "best", yields have flattened out (as opposed to beginning a multi-year ascent), so one will have neither the appreciation nor the better yields of years past.
That's one factor hidden in plain sight.
Another factor, one that was better hidden, is the mix of large/mid/small cap companies that the market started with in 2000. If we take the current mix (using VTSMX as a proxy), that's 77/17/6. With no rebalancing, it returned 6.61% annually, for a final value of $34,462. With annual rebalancing (as done in the article with the hybrid portfolios), the pure equity portfolio returned 6.45% annually, for a final value of $33,465.
Both are significantly better than the $31K or less returned by the portfolios in the article.
But here I'm just as guilty of slight of hand as the author. I split the 100% equity fund into large/mid/small cap, but didn't do the same thing for, say, the 70/30 portfolio.
If one does that (54/12/4 and 30% bond), the 70/30 fund ends up with $32,785 (rebalanced). Still clearly inferior to the pure equity portfolio, but significantly closer. Without rebalancing, the 54/12/3/30 hybrid fund does not fare as well, ending with just $31,384.
The point is that there can be more going on than the numbers convey, even when the numbers are legitimate. Bonds served several purposes in the past (though less than the article suggests); it is more questionable whether they continue to serve them now. Though one cannot deny their psychological, "sleep at night" benefit.

Well, when it comes to the quality of their brokerage platform what he says is true -- in fact, everyone else is years ahead while Vanguard's seems mired in the 20th century.

For the last 5-7 years I've had some serious doubt about whether they even had a webmaster or IT department. Can anyone confirm? Their recent discussion forums renovations are a disaster.

Not here. I'm still seeing last years corn crop with plastic covering it.
Derf

A really strange development. The Madison fund has $29M under management (BVAOX has $290M), it’s a load fund and is sub-advised by Wellington. It appears the Broadview team just doesn’t want to run a company. They’re only 6 years removed from being under FMI’s wing. I bought BVAOX when it was still FMIOX because FMIMX was closed. I stayed with them after they struck out on their own. There was plenty to like about the fund, but nonetheless I bailed when FMIMX opened. Glad I did.

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.