I've been with Firstrade for years. Also use Schwab, vanguard, FIDO and TD for various accounts. Firstrade is extremely basic but just fine.

No reason noted, tho fund has not done well for last few years.

I'm totally lost by what this thread is talking about. An awesome fund dropping by a minisclule amount one day is cause for concern? (Puh-lease!) An awesome fund is awesome for years and is a cause for concern?
I'm a happy PRWCX holder and see no reason for concern or controversy related to the fund anytime soon.

Missed in all the brickbats here is that PRWCX is a top-notch fund from a top-notch fund family. I’ve owned it nearly since inception. @Crash has owned it for close to a decade. Many others in the discussion either own it or wish they did.
A penny’s variation in a fund’s NAV on a single day is short-term focus for sure. I don’t know why @Crash singled the fund out for attention on Tuesday. But, considering the number of threads here that often have little / nothing to do with mutual funds, his sin appears slight.
Some of us just enjoy discussing the workings of funds - particularly the ones we own. To me, saying something like “the fund has outperformed every year for 15 years” adds little to an understanding of the fund or of investing. Anyone can go to M*, Lipper, or another data base, list funds by category, and quickly learn how various funds in different categories have performed. And I suspect that’s about all some think there is to investing ... buy those funds that have done better than their peers over time. If that’s all you as an investor want / need, it’s fine with me. But to some of us the game is infinitely more interesting if we dissect the fund - looking for the reasons the fund has worked so well (or, sometimes, why it hasn’t).
No one needed to read this thread. There’s plenty of other options to persue here. Ted, alone, generously initiates more threads most every day than @Crash and many others do over the course of a year. (And I’m sure he doesn’t mean to dismiss this single thread as totally irrelevant as compared to all those he posts.)

Barely down, by just a penny/share. Figure it had to be because of short-covering against its own holdings, on this record day??? Poopy. PRWCX closed to new investors. TRP.

I can't believe how short-term oriented this forum has become. SMFH

Did you mean to say that we are not keeping our eye on the ball? Not even more aware of long-term performance and risk? I don't follow your non-sequitur. I just made an observation: my otherwise splendid holding (PRWCX) was a disappointment on a very good day for the markets. My fund is doing rather well, and has been--- for YEARS. Is that long-term enough for you? On a day when a shareholder would have every reason to anticipate that the fund would RISE, it fell. That's all I said.
.....Sounds like some others don't like the thread I started, too. Well, now..... I think I've just responded in the most appropriate and reasonable way I can. You don't like my thoughts? Move on. I promise that I won't miss you. And what is SMFH? Some of us here prefer actual words, that carry actual meanings.

I probably had it turned around. Must be covered calls they use. From my previous understanding, they do sacrifice upside potential in return for limiting the downside. And they earn income in the process.
I once posted directly from their fund report (several years ago) how they were doing it at the time. But may no longer so doing. At any rate, 68% equity and the rest in bonds and cash. Sure would like to understand the process that allows them to outrun nearly everyone else.

>> Do you have account with Merrill Lynch? You HAVE to call.
?? one can do a lot of stuff online, including all trading
did I miss a particular transaction or operation?

Apparently you did miss the memo:

Merrill Lynch said it will stop automatically sweeping customers’ uninvested cash into money market funds starting in September and instead move it into lower-yielding deposits at affiliated banks. Brokers will still be able to manually move the funds into money market accounts.”

https://www.americanbanker.com/morning-scan/jpm-breaks-free-merrill-to-sweep-uninvested-funds-away-from-mmfs
That's part of a summary of Jason Zweig's Aug 21 WSJ article, Merrill Lynch Joins Brigade Downplaying Money-Market Mutual Funds:

Merrill’s brokers will still be able to place their customers’ cash in higher-yielding money-market funds, but only by purchasing them manually.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/merrill-lynch-joins-brigade-downplaying-money-market-mutual-funds-1534880179 (google search or subscription required)
Vanguard is currently paying 1.9% (7 day yield) on VMFXX, which is the settlement account for VBS accounts. So unlike most brokerages, there isn't the need to move money to a higher yielding MMF. Though VMMXX is yielding about 1/4% more.
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/list?filterAllAssetClasses=false&filterMoneyMarket=true&filterFiftyThousandAndUp=true&filterLowCostInvestor=true#/mutual-funds/asset-class/month-end-returns
At Fidelity, the default core account is SPAXX, currently yielding 1.53%. You can boost that by about 1/3% by moving the money into SPRXX/FZDXX. While you have to explicitly move the money into the higher yielding fund, Fidelity will automatically pull from that fund to cover purchases/withdrawals if there isn't enough in your core account.
https://www.fidelity.com/fund-screener/evaluator.shtml#!&ft=MM_all&mgdBy=F&ntf=Y&expand=$FundType&tab=ic
Chuck doesn't give you the option of a MMF for your settlement account:

Schwab no longer allows new enrollments into sweep money market funds (MMFs), with the exception of international accounts, Schwab Managed Accounts, Schwab Charitable accounts, and certain existing ERISA plans. Existing accounts with sweep MMFs will be migrated to the Bank Sweep feature over a period of years

So you have to move the money yourself into one of its "purchased" MMFs to get a decent yield:
https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/investment/money_markets_funds/purchased_money_funds
Getting back to Merrill Lynch. Here's their list of bank deposit accounts and MMFs available as "Cash management solutions". (When I download it, it gives me a date of 8/21/18).
https://olui2.fs.ml.com/Publish/Content/application/pdf/GWMOL/ICCRateSheet.pdf
As it notes, not all funds are available for all Merrill investors. Some of the "tickers" don't end in XX, and the Merrill Edge quote box doesn't recognize them. While the trade form does recognize standard symbols like GOFXX, when I enter one of them I get the message: "The symbol you entered is invalid. Please try again."
It looks like the only funds on Merrill's list that would be available to someone not investing through a managed account (that might be able to get an institutional share class) are the Blackrock Money Funds (BBIF). Tier 1 is paying 0.53%. Still I can't see how to buy that without calling a broker. Are there any MMFs you can buy online at Merrill Lynch or Merrill Edge?
https://www.blackrock.com/cash/en-us/products/282859/bbif-money-fund-1-usd
This exercise is confirming my expectations: Vanguard lowest cost/highest yield, Fidelity good yield, a bit easier to use, Schwab sticking you with low paying bank sweeps but offering options; Merrill Lynch sticking you with low paying sweeps and hiding alternatives if they even exist.

FYI: Seth Alexander, who runs the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s endowment, has produced long-term returns that beat many of his rivals. Yet, he was compensated less.
Among the 10 wealthiest private schools, MIT bested eight of nine endowments in the five years through June 2017. Alexander received a $2.1 million pay package in 2016, ranking him at the bottom. The 10 had an average $4.3 million package, according to data compiled by Bloomberg using the schools’ most recent tax filings. The schools either declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/mit-s-endowment-chief-delivers-better-returns-for-lower-pay-40428.html?print

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 ?