FYI: (The Linkster holds a position in TRBCX.)
True to its name, $57 billion T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth (TRBCX) focuses on blue chip stocks. More often than not, the fund gets blue-ribbon results. That makes it a standout among T. Rowe Price funds.
And in the last five years going into Thursday, the fund has outperformed 96% of its large-cap growth rivals industrywide tracked by Morningstar Inc. So far this year, it's 18.93% gain tops 85% of its peers as well as the S&P 500's 7.58% increase. That's also one of the best showings among T. Rowe Price funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/t-rowe-price-fund-wins-with-blue-chip-stocks/
TRBCX Is Ranked #1 In The (LCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/t-rowe-price-blue-chip-growth-fund/trbcx

Yes - “challenging ride”. I’m not speculating on the sector anymore (other than a small position in a real assets fund (PRAFX). But I once did. Crude bottomed at around $26 in early 2016. It’s now back above $70 (varies slightly by grade). So that’s been a nice recovery and puts the price within reach of the $100+ where it topped out around 2014. Nat gas (a byproduct of crude drilling) hasn’t budged since early 2016. Stubbornly holding below $3. That’s a constant curiosity to me. How do you spell GLUT?
From an investing principal standpoint, I believe in maintaining a small exposure (5-15%) to the area of natural resources, of which oil is a part. However, from a pocketbook standpoint, it hasn’t paid off over the past decade. These kinds of cycles appear to play out not in years - but over decades,
Funds? PRNEX (T. Rowe Price New Era) has always maintained a heavy exposure to the oil sector and is a well managed, reasonable ER fund).

@bee,
Not trying to be nitpick here. Please let me clarify what I said earlier. Prior to forming SFGIX, Andrew Foster was the lead manager of several Asia-centric funds at Matthews Asia Funds since 1998. This places his track record back to 20 years, not 10 years. His stellar record is exemplified in Matthews Asia Growth & Income fund, MACSX from 2003-2011 (8 years), the Dividend fund, MAPIX for 6 years and the India fund, MINDX for 5 years.
David Snowball has written a detailed profile on Foster's approach and I couldn't come close to write a such as thoughtful analysis. So here is the link.
mutualfundobserver.com/2013/03/seafarer-overseas-growth-income-sfgix/
I started to invest with MACSX in 2000 when I noticed the fund is holding up much better than VWO during the height of tech bubble from 2000-2002. It taught me a lesson that those "tortoise" funds are more likely to be successful for their investors because they limit the downside loss. When the annual returns are compounded over time and through several market cycles, the total return can be fully captured. Many investors who move in and out of the mutual funds tend to have much lower returns than the market returns.
Coincidentally, I also like MAPIX (Bob Horrocks), FMIJX (Alex English), and PRWCX (David Giroux).

An investment 10 years ago in VGENX has been a challenging ride. I really would like to get excited by this sector. A better 10 year play has been FSCHX which uses OIl & Gas as its feed stock or Utilities such as GASFX and FSUTX which transport and covert these resources into electricity.
10 years chart comparing these funds:

@Sven. SFGIX hasn't been around for 10 years. Inception date looks like 2/15/2012...so closer to 6 years. I'll agree that it has out performed the index (a fund such as VWO), but SFGIX is not an all equity fund (closer to 70/15/15 over its lifetime).
70% EM
15 % of his fund is in LT and IT Treasuries
15% of his fund is classified as "Ex - US Develop"
I compared his fund to a "2 fund combo of PRMSX & PREMX" (70/30). The trade off here is SFGIX opts for US Treasuries where PREMX is most EM Corporates.
Similar results...so nothing special here.
But, over shorter time frames he does a good job of managing downside risk.
I Like MAPIX, FMIJX, PRWCX for the same reason.
Fund managers that manage downside risk and deploy into opportunities are hard to find.

Please read David Snowball's write up on SFGIX again. I continue to invest with Andrew Foster since the time when he managed Matthews Gro&Inc fund. Over the 10 years period he made more money for me than the Vanguard EM Index fund in mt 401(K). His funds tend to excel during the down market while they lag in the bull market. His long term record speaks for itself. In 2008 his fund outperformed the EM index by 20%. But everybody need to decide the amount of EM exposure they need with respect to their risk tolerance. These days there are not many great managers left in the EM space.

Great fund...have owned it for a few years. Thanks for update...going to buy a starter position in my hsa.

They sure need to change something. :)
Currently the top 10 holdings all appear to be miners and make up over 40% of the fund’s investments. The fund lags most other mining funds for 1 & 5 years. Admittedly, mining hasn’t been a great place to be over that time. The 0.36% ER is low. But, for whatever reason, resource funds generally have lower ERs than might be expected.
Couldn’t tell from the blurb exactly what they intend to change besides the name. Would guess they’ll move more to an infrastructure approach while retaining a sizable exposure to the miners. With a mandate like “infrastructure” the door is pretty much wide open to a variety of investments. Price used to include financials in their old infrastructure fund. The idea was that if a company loaned money to infrastructure companies or projects it belonged in an infrastructure fund. (TRP closed the fund in 2014, merging it into their Real Assets fund, PRAFX.)

GISOX pretty damn good vs. benchmark on chart at Morningstar. But compare PRIDX. (But PRIDX is put in GROWTH rather than BLEND, where GISOX is.)
GISOX is not quite 3 years old. YTD +3.15%. ..... PRIDX +3.77%.

This fund's "year to year growth" over the last 10 years exactly 5 years above and 5 years below the the S&P 500 TR:

But it's trailing returns are much better...beating the S&P 500 TR for all time frames:

Howdy,
There have been problems with international trade FOREVER. Every country protects certain industries in various ways at different times. Geez, we've been subsidizing our sugar industry for ~200 years. This is why you have organizations like the WTO to resolve these ongoing differences.
Ergo, while much of his rationale is true, I disagree with Trumps tactics, which are sort of a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach. Whether it develops into an all out trade war or not, doesn't lessen the negative impacts this is having on our economy. Coke just raised prices to cover the aluminum tariff increase.
It is never good when the government intervenes in the economy as it cause distortions and interferes with the functioning of the free market. The steel industry being protected will continue to be fat, lazy and non-competitive. In fact, it will get worse. The jobs created in steel number ~28K while the jobs lost already are pushing 500K. If you want to protect these workers, you Educate them to take other jobs. Find me a coal miner that wouldn't rather be making wind turbines or solar panels.
Oh, and while we're currently blaming Trump, this craps been going on in Washington for decades by BOTH parties with officials so busy lining their pockets and selling us out.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono

In America, there are three branches to the federal government. This helps maintain a balance of power. Trump has said many things over the years, sometimes contradicting himself. I still support conservative policies at the federal level. I don't support hated or dictatorships. I know that some people think that all Republicans have drank the Kool aid, but I judge each policy on its own merit.
Can I just ask that when people make claims, like, "anyone that disagrees with me, has to be a complete moron", that they cite credible sources (i.e. peer reviewed journals). Thanks.

Howdy folks,
Well, all y'all have gone and got me stirred up.
The Donald being elected: duh. Hillary's good points were that she was a war-mongering wall street fluffer . . . bad points . . . the same. I voted for her because she was light years superior to her opponent.
The Donald was elected by people wanting change. Change that had been promised to them by the previous FIVE presidents - and not delivered. Damnit. The issue is Industrial Age to Information Age and the answer isn't 'plastics', it's EDUCATION. Washington's response was to charge interest on education loans to the poorest people in the land and shackle them with notes from which you can find no relief. Are you shitting me?!? If it looks like slavery and smells like slavery and walks like slavery - it probably is slavery.
I can understand why people voted for the Donald.
I cannot understand why anyone could continue to support him. No rational mind can. No one that can differentiate propaganda from the true can . No one that understands the difference between good and evil can. He glorifies all our bad traits -our dark side. That's ok for a man but not for our country. We're now the Ugly American. All of us. That's something we have to deal with.
We all have members of our family or long time friends that have become 'true believers'. We know what that means - a discourse where you realize that their eyes have glazed over and their reciting 'Hannity'. Hell, my BIL told me on the 4th, that "the trade war was good because it was going to bring back all our manufacturing jobs.?" I've known this man for 30 years. I had nothing to say.
And that is what bothers me the most. It's like southern California a few decades back and your neighbors have met this great speaker Jim Jones and they're selling their house and moving to Jonestown. Or here in MI, back in the 70s, with
Koscot Cosmetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koscot_Interplanetary and later when they were busted, Dare to be Great. Both pyramid schemes. BUT, I knew people that went to the rallies and bought in. Sold everything and bought in. Rallies? Pure Nazi-germany/trump America - music, stage show, rahrah, get everyone involved. If you've never been to a 'rally', you cannot even begin to image how intense. Most folks in attendance come away willing to sign away their souls, their kids souls, yours, mine . . .
Alas and alack, some of us cannot resist and folks, I've got a dear friend on this board that I've know for 30-40 GD YEARS!!!!! And he's swallowed the koolaid and there's nothing I can do . . . and it breaks my heart.
Cashman and West
and so it goes,
peace,
rono

Some thoughts:
Wouldn't the 2.3% be a bottom line cost savings on the product total cost?
Raw Material costs (from tariffs) would be an increased production expense if the device were manufactured in the US and usually a fraction of the final cost of the finished product. China does manufacture about 12% of US Medical device finished products that we import.
I haven't asked the question to my doctor, but I could imagine..."Hey Doc before we do this...where was my hip joint manufactured?" or "Hey, we have to re-schedule your operation...your hip is still on the ship."
From a April 2018 NYT's article:

The proposed tariffs have unsettled the medical device and supply industries, given that a growing number of products, as well as their components, are now manufactured in China. In recent years, as trade groups have noted, Chinese manufacturing of medical equipment has undergone a major shift from throwaway items like surgical gloves to more complicated products like magnetic resonance imaging scanners.
China’s medical device industry has been expanding rapidly. An International Trade Commission report in January said the fastest growth was in sales of implantable orthopedic devices, plates and screws, mostly made of titanium and used for surgery and sports medicine. One analyst estimates that about 12 percent of medical devices imported into the United States come from China

tariffs-china-devices-drugs
As for raw drug ingredient (coming from china) impacted by the tariffs:

...generic drugs that contain Chinese ingredients are manufactured in countries like India, meaning they would not be subject to the tariffs. And brand-name drugs made in the United States are frequently so expensive that the list price often has little connection to the product’s manufacturing cost.

Passing costs on or padding costs may also at play here:

“The cynic in me thinks this is another way for companies to say they need to raise their prices,”

Not to be too pedantic here, but isn't it a bit premature to say "That excise tax has been repealed"? I seem to recall a Rose Garden celebration when the ACA was similarly "repealed" by one house of Congress.
That's not to say that I don't expect the tax to be repealed. After all, its repeal has been supported in the past by the likes of Senators Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and Amy Klobuchar.
Aside from the old chestnut "buy on rumor, sell on news", how much impact would a repeal of a 2.3% tax, one that's already suspended until 2020, really have on company profits (and hence valuation)?
Medical device demand should be pretty inelastic. So the calculation may be simple - this could boost top line revenue by 2.3% (with tax revenue merely shifting to company revenue). With large medical device company profit margins in the 20-30% range, that's around a 10% increase in profits a couple of years down the road.
In the meantime, these companies are facing higher costs due to tariffs on steel and aluminum. Again, assuming inelastic demand, that's a significant hit, now, on profits.
Then there are the tariffs on medical devices imported from China (which seem to change month to month):

Several companies, including Medtronic and Zimmer Biomet, have orthopedic device factories in China that export goods to the United States. ... Any products shipped from those operations to the United States would be subject to the tariffs. Medtronic declined to comment, saying it was still reviewing the proposal. ...
By Friday [April 6, after the initial announcement on tariffs], the major medical device company stocks had dipped along with the overall market. Medtronic shares were 2.7 percent lower for the week, and Zimmer Biomet was down 2.4 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/health/trump-tariffs-china-devices-drugs.html
I doubt there were many people expecting the excise tax to ever go into effect again, so this is likely already priced in. Meanwhile, there are those tariffs. They're also likely priced in, though IMHO there's a lot more uncertainty with these - timing, magnitude, duration.

Since, the stock market now sits towards all time highs perhaps some other retail investors that went through the Great Recession will comment on how they tranversed it. I am sure there were more ways than just one to do this with good success. A point of infomation about my above post. I did very little selling in my mine and my wife's IRAs and they recovered just fine although I did go towards a more aggressive equity asset allocation in them as the market began to recover. Note, we were not taking distributions from the IRAs when the Great Recession came upon us; but we were taking from the inheritance account to improve our standard of living. My answer now being in retirement is to hold more cash and take no more than one half of what my five year average total return is in my portfolio and to reduce spending during periods of market declines. In this way my portfolio grows over time so when a good market dip or swoon does come and the portfolio loses value my valuation drop want sting as bad as it otherwise would had I not grown its valuation. I'd sincerely be interested in learning what other retail investors did (within their own portfolio) to navigate their way through the Great Recession. Perhaps, we will hear from some that were taking distributions during this period and some that were within a few years of retirement as I was. With my current asset allocation I figure I can weather a 25% decline in the equity markets pretty well and have a portfolio decline of about eight to twelve percent perhaps no more than fifteen. Interestingly, this seems to be the amount of cash I currently hold (15%). Again, I'd reduce withdrawals along with spending. RMD's could if necessary get reinvested in mine and my wife's joint taxable account. My current withdrawal rate is about 2% of all the portfolios combined investment value. The portfolios generate income at about 3% plus any capital gain income distribution when combined bumps the total income yield upwards toward the 4% to 5% range. Again, an interestingly, I am holding about three to four years of portfolio income generation in cash.

Hi @Old_Joe and @davidrmoran
I've written many times over the years, since the big market melt, that "this time is different". Indeed, IMHO; this remains the circumstance. The basis of the "once" economy is no longer in place.
I read this article, too; prior to David's linking here. This Washington Post write deserves its own thread and not buried within this mish-mash. Sadly, this post would also become "run over" by thread drift of one type or other with any replies not somewhat tangent to the subject. This type of hijacking also creates problems here for a proper discussion of a topic.
Catch

@BrianW,
Thanks for your question as to how I transversed the market swoon during the "Great Recession."
Without going into great detail; but, explaing what I did and why. My parents passed in 2004 so I got step ups on the assets I received from their estates. When 2008 came and the market began to pull back I was at about 70% equity at the time and I sold down when a position developed a 10% loss and continued to do so until I was about 40% equity. Since, a good bit of my investment wealth was in a taxable account this put a sizeable loss on my books. Also, I was at about 40% equity when the S&P 500 turnned upward at the "Devil's Number 666" and sitting on a wad of cash. As the market turned up I began to average back in asset classes that had the faster moving currents. Having a sizeable loss on my books I was able to reposition from time-to-time booking profit and using the losses to cover my gains. I was able to do this for a good number of years and getting my portfolios position pretty much like I wanted them. In time, I started reducing equity and again selling down equities as the markets continued to advance keeping my asset allocation in mind. In addition, I made some nondeductable contributions to mine and my wifes IRAs. Today, these nonductable contributions help as we take RMDs as they are not fully taxable due to the nondeductable contributions made. My accountant deals with this.
Currently, in retirement, my family's portfolios combined bubble at about 15% cash, 35% domestic equity, 15% foreign equity, 25% fixed (bonds) and the rest in other assets such as convertibles, perferreds, commodities, etc. For what it may be worth I consider this to be an all weather asset allocation. In the past several years I have not done the buying and selling (repositioning) that I once did as I have fully used the losses. However, I still do some selling to harvest some of the gains over time but keeping joint income (husband and wife) back of the threshold for higher medicare premium assesments.
There you have it ...
Old_Skeet

What has worked well for me and my family as I managed my parents investments while they were in retirement and that was to take no more than one half of what the portfolio's five year total return averaged. Naturally, you have to start with ample principal and live conseratively (but well) through retirement. I grew their principal and their income while they were alive while also at the same taking good care of them making sure they enjoyed life's pleasures. The result was I was indeed blessed and wound up with a nice inhertiance.
Today, I practice the same for me and my wife as I did for my parents. Actually, our income (over the past five years in retirement) has increased and now totals more than what we made during our last five years while were working full time. So, it pays to grow principal even in retirement.
I am not saying this will work for everyone. It is simply what I have done and experienced good success with. The key though is to watch what you spend but to also do some things to enjoy life along the way. And, yes we plan to leave some for our son, daughter in law and grand children as was done for us.
Indeed, we believe in passing some of it forward.

At one time MarketWatch was a pretty decent source for financial information and perspective. It's my feeling that in the last few years it has deteriorated to basically a lot of clickbait crap.