Mostly lurking for the past few years. Thanks for all the fund discussions. The rest not so much.
In addition to using Vanguard ( for the lower Pimco Institutional hurdle), one could check Fidelity institutional minimums if you have a retirement account with Fidelity.
There are lower institutional minimums for/from some fund families.(EVBIX,
DGMIX, RAIIX, QUSIX,etc.) I suspect there are other funds/families.

Bit short on time. But would love for somebody to dissect this fund and explain in detail how this fund continues to chalk-up double digit (or near double-digit) returns given its positioning by Price as “... a conservative value approach” to equity investing. The fund currently holds 4% in Price’s institutional money market fund. It is huge at over 30 Bil AUM (Lipper). That’s double DODBX or OAKBX according to the Lipper numbers I consulted. A glance at the top 10 holdings displays nothing remarkable save for the 4% money market position. It’s got automotive, financial and (a bit surprising - Microsoft) within the top 10. Fees are typical of other TRP funds at about 0.7%.
I’ve owned a small chunk of the fund for most of the 25 years I’ve been with Price. Have seen the fund go from a small opportunist (and nimble) mid-cap fund to a large hard to maneuver blue chip fund to whatever it’s morphed into today. Recent reading indicates they’ve been selling puts on equity funds. I’m not well versed on options, but gather that they limit both the potential upside and potential loss on a stock by doing this. The put-option also apparently generates additional income.
I’d be interested in knowing whether investor flows into the fund continued after it closed its doors to new investors. That’s hard to know, since AUM would have increased by benefit of fund performance as well. But if money is continuing to flow in that would partially explain (not completely) the fund’s sizzling performance, since that new money might well be driving up the individual assets which the fund owns - and would be buying with the new money.
Price has a great research and analytical team. I doubt there’s few better in the mutual fund universe. And, they do tilt their investment approach one way or the other depending on their very thorough macro economic readings. By now, the fund has become a bit of a flagship for the firm, so likely to receive their best money management people going forward. A loyal stable investor base goes a long way in aiding performance, as the need to sell holdings during market downturns is lessened.
I also hold OAKBX- which I believe should be about equal in performance. However, it has done nowhere near as well for several years. But OAKBX did survive the last bear market (‘07-‘09) with significantly smaller losses. And, I believe it would likely sustain smaller losses in another major downturn.

Is there any way to buy into this fund? I was too late to the party unfortunately. Is there a good alternative that anyone would recommend? I'm in FPACX but it has greatly underperformed PRWCX.

Hank is correct: "This fund--- PRWCX--- walks on water." ... I can tell you that my other fund in the same category (according to Morningstar) is MAPOX from Mairs and Power, out of St. Paul, MN. YTD, PRWCX is +6.22% while MAPOX is up +3.07%. And MAPOX pays divs quarterly, while PRWCX pays everything only in one slug, in December. Looking back 10 years, MAPOX is up +8.52%, in top 11 percentile in-category. In the same 10-year period, PRWCX is up by +9.91%, in top 1% in-category. So, you can see that over the long-haul, that category's best performers are bunched-up, near the top of the heap. In the case of MAPOX, $10,000 has in that time frame become $22,658 while the same amount in PRWCX has grown to $25,730.

@Crash, As I’ve said for years, that fund walks on water.

Alpha, the actual term, is not just a measure of outperformance, but a calculation of risk adjusted outperformance. Also, you are mistating cumulative returns. This fund produced slightly better returns with less volatility, and earned an alpha stat of 1.94 for three years as a result--more than a little alpha exactly as davidrmoran stated: performance.morningstar.com/funds/etf/ratings-risk.action?t=XRLV&region=usa&culture=en_US

@Lewis: Yes. for three years, XRLV returned 0.4% more than PPY. However, the cummulative returns are XLRV 12.86% and SPY 13.97%. If you consider an .04% as being alpha, I have a bridge to sell you. How about the expense ratio's ?
Regards,
Ted

FYI: Mutual fund fees have increasingly come under the microscope as cheap passive vehicles have proliferated and investors have flocked to them. This trend, combined with a nine-year bull market that has caused fund assets under management to grow (despite many active funds seeing outflows), has driven fees downward. As a result, active funds that haven't lowered their fees have become less competitive on price, and their Price Pillar ratings, a component of the Morningstar Analyst Rating, have gotten worse. Let's take a closer look at four funds whose Price ratings dropped to Negative from Positive during the past five years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/879121/weve-downgraded-these-funds-price-ratings.html

My question is: if investors do not weigh losses more heavily than gains (i.e. are averse to losses), then why do so many people here keep looking at Sortino ratios and maximum draw downs? Why don't we have maximum gain data as well?
@msf - great question
It might be (in studying potential downside) that people are seeking to rationalize the risks they take - in effect, to convince themselves that the risks are small compared to the gains they expect.
We don’t have maximum gain data. How could you? :) But after a 10-year bull market most risk-asset numbers look rosey. By contrast, after a bear market where 40-50% losses were experienced, the reverse might be the case. People might need convincing that “The sun will come out tomorrow.”
There’s a reason the play Annie is set in the Great Depression years. Here’s some well done clips from live stage. Gotta love it.

This thread is a followup to a bullpen post:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/40777/is-loss-aversion-a-myth
That post links to a column that in turn cites the paper that the Scientific American piece linked here is summarizing. How's that for circular references :-)
That column argues that loss aversion is still real, though it suggests a refinement to the concept.
My question is: if investors do not weigh losses more heavily than gains (i.e. are averse to losses), then why do so many people here keep looking at Sortino ratios and maximum draw downs? Why don't we have maximum gain data as well?
That's not a joke. I'm as concerned when a fund I have performs way out of line with my expectations on the upside as when it underperforms.
I owned a legacy fund that had originally been an income oriented sector fund that evolved into a respectable broad based large cap value fund. I had been considering selling it for a variety of reasons. What finally made me pull the trigger was one year when it wound up as the top performing LCV fund (can't verify, but M* says it was in the top 1%).
The fund was so volatile that even with top quartile returns for the past 3, 5, and 10 years, it had a 1* rating. Yet the last straw for me was the upside risk.
So, why all these biased metrics? Junk statistics, or do investors really care more about their risk of loss then their risk of gain?

Spoke with fund manager Brian Loo today. Friday’s out of the ordinary move did not come from any specific event or the repricing of any illiquid bonds. But simply a broad based move up in a large number of positions. I feel more confident in the strategy of IOFIX and how it will play out in the coming years. Brian is really a nice and down to earth guy and I have enjoyed my conversations with him since IOFIX came to my attention last year.

Over the past couple of decades, there have been a few $0 TF services. Not surprisingly virtually all have fallen by the wayside. Mutual funds are generally not sold short, so there's no money to be made in lending the shares. Unlike Fidelity offering up a couple of loss leaders (losing but a few basis points) to draw profitable business traffic, providing a full menu of competing products below cost won't drive customers to proprietary products and services.
A good reference for 2001 brokerages and rates (I take 0 TF funds offered to mean all are NTF):
https://www.aaii.com/journal/article/discount-broker-shopping-guide-mutual-fund-supermarkets
At the time, Baker & Co, NetVest, Scottrade, and York Securities sold all the funds they offered without a transaction fee. I've never heard of the first two. Scottrade offered all funds NTF from roughly 2001 (based on skimming Wayback Machine pages) to the end of 2004.
I do recognize the name York Securities, but never tracked it. It's still around, though no longer selling all its fund offerings without commissions.
FWIW, here's Baker & Co's site (I think). Finding NetVest is trickier. The website listed with NetVest in 2001 takes you to an investing app startup. Possibly NetVest became NetVest Financial. In any case, Baker and NetVest Financial are now focused on financial services, not low cost brokerage services.
Apparently, Firstrade also offered all the funds it sold without commissions in the early 2000's (though not in 2001). That rings a faint bell with me.
Other financial institutions have tried to offer all funds without transaction but only to investors keeping significant assets with them:
WellsTrade required you to keep a PMA account ($25K+) with Wells Fargo to get 100 trades/year. Grandfathered accounts, no new ones for the past several years.
Scudder Preferred Investment Plus ($100K+ in assets) - 1998-1999 unlimited trades
Vanguard: 25 free trades/year for Flagship customers ($1M+ in Vanguard funds), 100 trades/year for Flagship Select customers ($5M+ in Vanguard funds).
Vanguard looks to be in it for the long term, but think about how they're doing it. You must funnel seven figures to their money managers, not just into their brokerage account. Fidelity may offer some good funds, but I don't see their customers having the same loyalty to their proprietary funds. Their customers are not likely to commit $1M to Fidelity funds just to be able to trade non-Fidelity funds without a fee.
Who else could make a go of this business model? T. Rowe Price? It recently upped its min in proprietary funds from $100K to $250 for a free M* membership. Would its customers spring for $1M to invest in outside funds w/o a fee? Or could they make a go of it with a min below $1M?

@VintageFreak: You said, " The only reason I have multiple brokerage accounts is because I've over the years become a COB, and worry about scandalous behavior from people at any brokerage sharing same genes as Bernie Madoff and want to protect myself. May seem irrational to some, but it helps me sleep a bit better." Don't worry Freak, Black Sabbath has a song for that !
Regards,
Ted:)

P.S. What does COB mean ?

Vanguard systems cannot do "math rounding" properly. Schwab is one of the best "rounders". This is the only consistent problem for me with Vanguard when tracking cost basis come tax time.
I come here for research. For me broker is just broker. I also have accounts at brokergages mentioned by johnN and also Fidelity. I am happy to report I've begun process of ridding myself of TDAmeritrade out of my life!
The only reason I have multiple brokerage accounts is because I've over the years become a COB, and worry about scandalous behavior from people at any brokerage sharing same genes as Bernie Madoff and want to protect myself. May seem irrational to some, but it helps me sleep a bit better.

@MikeW
Our house has been with Fidelity for 40 years and we're "self-educated" regarding investing. Our family backgrounds provided for learning and experiences from our parents which allowed both of us to be prudent in the area of personal finance and investing. No financial planners or advisors.
Thank you for being gracious enough to share your particular investment needs.
Not knowing your background or comfort level with investing; I tend to agree with @slick
that: "I think you are on the right track of finding a fee only planner but managing the assets yourself with occasional meetings to make sure you stay on track."
You noted, Schwab. I'm aware of the roboadviser, but not familiar with its functions as used by Schwab for guidance for an individual investor.
You also mentioned changing investments. Do you feel your current portfolio mix is not suitable?
Making a decision to use an investment advisor , would be a tough chew for me today (not to be confused with other estate planning functions). He/she would soon become tired of my questions.
Got to get pillow time. Perhaps other tomorrow.
Regards,
Catch

@Mikew, I hired an advisor who was a certified financial planner ar ML whom I knew for a few years with my work for a nonprofit after I inherited money from my spouse. It was more than I had managed previously so I thought it wise. She created a plan for me and transferred my assets from Fido. There were some funds that would not transfer so substituted a few, which were perfectly good funds. We did buy stocks, but she was not a fan of etfs as I was. There were some funds I wanted that I could not buy because they were not compensated, and frankly I found I was better at fund picking than she was. I ended up transferring back to Fido after 3 years, and manage my own assets, but do have use of an advisor with whom I meet with quarterly, no charge. I had more of an issue with ML than my advisor there, and we are still friends. I think you are on the right track of finding a fee only planner but managing the assets yourself with occasional meetings to make sure you stay on track. Fido also has advisors for half the cost of ML if you choose that route.

HI folks,
I wonder if I could ask for the board's advice on how to identify a good fee-only financial planner. I have had an initial meeting with an advisor at Merrill Lynch and he seems to be good. However, he only provides financial planning if I turn over my assets to him. He will create a financial plan and then charge me 1% for assets under management on an ongoing basis. I'm not sure that I want to go that route. I need to do some retirement planning that will evaluate my financial picture with the intention of retiring in 10 years. But I'm more of a buy and hold investor. I think that I might want to go the route of working with a financial planner who can develop the plan but that I would continue to manage my own assets. I'm not sure that the ongoing fee of paying 1% for someone else to manage my assets is worth it. I'd value your thoughts on how to identify a good planner. If anyone has had good experience with someone in the Washington DC area please message me.. Thank you.

FYI: If you have any clients retiring today, and they’ve had money working for the past 40 years, large caps were their best bet. Ideally, large-cap growth.
With all due respect to small-cap enthusiasts, high-yield fanatics or gold bugs, large caps have dominated a rollicking good ride from the late 1970s to today. These funds powered through good times and bad: sky-high inflation, bull markets, crashes and irrational exuberance. There were low points along the way, of course. That’s why we added both the best, and worst, annual performances for each fund, in addition to the 40-year annualized average.
Spoiler alert, the worst year for each one was 2008, the year of the financial crisis. The best year for 11 of 20 of these funds was either 1979 or 1980. But before you get too envious of the days of disco, bear in mind that the 30-year mortgage rate reached 16% in 1980, according to numbers from FreddieMac.
To be sure, a lot of funds aren’t eligible for this list. Any fund launched in the past 40 years obviously won’t be here, impressive gains notwithstanding. The biggest case in point: There are no ETFs on this list because they’re too new for our time frame in this analysis. The first ETFs made their appearance on the scene in the early 1990s.
So which funds have posted the best performance for the past 40 years? Scroll through to see the top 20. All data is from Morningstar as of 12/31/2016.
Regards,
Ted
https://bic.financial-planning.com/slideshow/top-funds-for-the-past-40-years
FMAGX annual return since inception, 2/5/63, is 16.04%

Yep, I like Fidelity too and am currently with them because they won the benefits business for the company I retired from. But this article was between Schwab and Vanguard. After a couple years now, I think I found the Schwab platform easier to negotiate actually. My two cents. c

I'll step forward, again, and restart the thread as we open September. Some may remember this thread was started by Scott who left the board three years ago, or so; and, I kept it going with his blessing. In the meantime the below link will take you to my last reported thinking.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/42056/old-skeet-s-market-barometer-and-report-june-july-recaps#latest

@Junkster et al.
IOFIX, 3 year chart.
In many years of charts, I've not seen this relative to the top portion of the chart for RSI. This fund has generally maintained an above 70 RSI (daily or weekly chart) and is currently at 93.5. Above 70, for the technical aspect, is a "watch this", as this investment has entered an "overbought" area. To maintain in the 80-90 range is very unusual. Most technical folks would be yelling, sell. One may also see the price spikes near the end of calendar months as noted by @Junkster, including a most similar pattern from August of 1 year ago.
@Junkster , have you an opinion as to whether the technical aspect is worth regard.
@Tony , if you still receive notifications from MFO; take a look and please offer your technical view opinion.
This link provides a basic description of ABS, relative to some IOFIX exposure. To the right edge of the page is a list of defined aspects of ABS.
Asset backed securities
Whatever management has figured out at this time in the investment area(s) is surely working.
Regards,
Catch