I know a few people who are paying 1% - some are getting a good amount of help with their financial situations (i.e. are getting reasonable value for their money), some are getting investment help and some long term planning (IMHO not in itself worth the 1%, but these people also seem to derive value from the personal handholding).
If, as it sounds here, all you're looking for is investment selection and management, I agree with Lewis that something like Vanguard Personal Advisors (a hybrid robo/human offering) or a pure robo advisor would fit the bill.
Regarding PONAX and other bond funds: PONAX is NTF (no fee, no load) at many brokerages now. If you're investing at least $25K, it's worth paying a transaction fee to buy the cheaper PINIX shares, especially if you're looking to buy-and-hold. Vanguard has a $25K min, most other places require at least $100K.
Most people here seem to be enthusiastic about the fund. I'll be the wet blanket. The manager is excellent and I doubt over any long period of time the fund would be a poor choice. But it's focused on asset backed securities(ABS) - a few years ago on mortgages (a form of ABS), more recently on non-mortgage ABS. These have their own risks and rewards; the fact that they have done well does not mean they will continue to do so. See these columns:
http://www.morningstar.com/articles/834221/is-pimco-income-the-new-total-return.html (how PONAX did well with mortgages, but that market's risk/reward has worsened), and
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/39045-morningstar-heres-the-impact-of-rising-interest-rates-on-mortgage-backed-securities (unique risks in mortgage backed securities that may manifest with rising interest rates)
Non-mortgage ABS are yet again different from vanilla bonds. (See investment characteristics in this page.) So again, the behavior may not be what one expects.
Thus I agree again (at least partially) with Lewis that you might benefit from adding a more vanilla bond fund, something like a short to intermediate term corporate. (IMHO index funds are too heavily weighted toward lower yielding, though higher quality, Treasuries.)

This is very helpful and much appreciated. Bonds are new to me, and really want something I don't want to worry too much about. PONAX seems diverse, and has a positive track record for a good 10 years, and as the other poster mentioned, has not gotten as bad a hit as of late compared to other bond funds.
I think adding something more vanilla, like VBMFX, or one of Vanguard's corp/int'l funds could be a good idea as you suggested, but it might be wise to let rates settle first.
I also feel that you guys are right about the FA. Aside from my bond uncertainty, I'm generally happy with my AA so far, and don't think it's really necessary to give this guy a quarterly cut for making slight adjustments here and there.
Thanks again!

I know a few people who are paying 1% - some are getting a good amount of help with their financial situations (i.e. are getting reasonable value for their money), some are getting investment help and some long term planning (IMHO not in itself worth the 1%, but these people also seem to derive value from the personal handholding).
If, as it sounds here, all you're looking for is investment selection and management, I agree with Lewis that something like Vanguard Personal Advisors (a hybrid robo/human offering) or a pure robo advisor would fit the bill.
Regarding PONAX and other bond funds: PONAX is NTF (no fee, no load) at many brokerages now. If you're investing at least $25K, it's worth paying a transaction fee to buy the cheaper PINIX shares, especially if you're looking to buy-and-hold. Vanguard has a $25K min, most other places require at least $100K.
Most people here seem to be enthusiastic about the fund. I'll be the wet blanket. The manager is excellent and I doubt over any long period of time the fund would be a poor choice. But it's focused on asset backed securities(ABS) - a few years ago on mortgages (a form of ABS), more recently on non-mortgage ABS. These have their own risks and rewards; the fact that they have done well does not mean they will continue to do so. See these columns:
http://www.morningstar.com/articles/834221/is-pimco-income-the-new-total-return.html (how PONAX did well with mortgages, but that market's risk/reward has worsened), and
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/39045-morningstar-heres-the-impact-of-rising-interest-rates-on-mortgage-backed-securities (unique risks in mortgage backed securities that may manifest with rising interest rates)
Non-mortgage ABS are yet again different from vanilla bonds. (See investment characteristics in this page.) So again, the behavior may not be what one expects.
Thus I agree again (at least partially) with Lewis that you might benefit from adding a more vanilla bond fund, something like a short to intermediate term corporate. (IMHO index funds are too heavily weighted toward lower yielding, though higher quality, Treasuries.)

You're right, @Old_Skeet. One of the trusts I am lucky enough to be beneficiary to is 100 years old (will be terminating, FINALLY, in 2 years). A couple of the stocks invested in then (or in the last 50 years) are still around. Thousands percentages gains in those (and a couple of them lost majority of the gains due to being held under any or all circumstances by USB). But it's NOT a step-up, so the cap gains rate will be enormous. Still, I certainly can't complain about the regular income and the remaining amount.
So, investing JUST A LITTLE as early as possible can really add up over a few decades.
Cathy
P.S. You're also right about so-called "professionals" who have little, if almost no, knowledge of mutual funds, or even basic investment knowledge. I've found that out way too often with TDA reps when I've called or emailed.

Navy Federal: 7 year CD offers 2.65%. That's the longest maturity I see offered there. But boy, oh boy, that seems incredibly meager, when you're committing your money for 7 years!
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/certificates-rates.php
Money Market accounts are tiered.
($2,500 minimum.)
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/money-market.php
...Just thought I'd mention it, for comparison.

From Prospectus: RPGAX
“The fund’s investments in alternative investments may include unregistered hedge funds or other private or registered investment companies. ... ”
“... A hedge fund is considered an illiquid asset by the fund, is not subject to the same regulatory requirements as mutual funds and other investment companies, and could underperform comparable hedge funds with similar alternative strategies. Hedge funds are not required to provide periodic pricing or valuation information to investors, and often engage in leveraging, short-selling, commodities investing and other speculative investment practices that are not fully disclosed and may increase the risk of investment loss. Their underlying holdings are not as transparent to investors or typically as diversified as those of traditional mutual funds, and an investor’s (i.e., the fund’s) redemption rights are typically limited. All of these factors make the fund’s investments in alternative investments and hedge funds more difficult to value and monitor when compared to more traditional investments, and may increase the fund’s liquidity risks.”. http://quote.morningstar.com/fund-filing/Prospectus/2018/3/1/t.aspx?t=RPGAX&ft=485BPOS&d=e356b3ef2f165906373d32ffc4cf44ef
From Yahoo: T. Rowe Price Global Allocation (RPGAX)
Top 10 Holdings (34.03% of Total Assets)
Blackstone Hedge Fund Solutions 9.62%
Reserve Invt Fds 6.47%
T. Rowe Price Instl Emerging Mkts Bond TREBX 3.88%
T. Rowe Price Emerg Mkts Lcl Ccy Bd PRELX 3.10%
TRP DYNAMIC GLOBAL BOND FD-I 2.78%
T. Rowe Price Instl Intl Bond RPIIX 2.57%
T. Rowe Price Instl Floating Rate RPIFX 2.02%
T. Rowe Price Instl High Yield TRHYX 1.63%
Microsoft Corp MSFT 1.09%
Amazon.com Inc AMZN 0.87%
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/RPGAX/holdings/
Morningstar also lists the fund as having 9.62% invested in Blackstone Hedge Fund Solutions. http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=RPGAX®ion=usa&culture=fr-CA
“Blackstone Hedge Fund Solutions” appears to be a client tailored hedge fund of hedge funds operated by Blackstone. From Blackstone’s Website:
“Our Hedge Fund Solutions group, Blackstone Alternative Asset Management (BAAM®), is the world’s largest discretionary investor in hedge funds. With approximately $75 billion in assets under management as of December 31, 2017, BAAM aims to provide its clients with investment solutions via various different means, including customized and commingled portfolios, special situations, seeding, GP ownership, and registered products. Our investors include many of the world’s leading institutional investors, including corporate, public and union pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and central banks. ... BAAM’s overall investment philosophy is to protect and grow investors’ assets through both commingled and custom-tailored investment strategies designed to deliver compelling risk-adjusted returns and mitigate risk. Approximately half of the assets we manage are invested in customized vehicles created to meet client-specific objectives.”
A “Sorry - Page Not Found” message may appear when you click following link. There is another link on the page (Hedge fund Solutions) that should take you to the material. https://www.blackstone.com/the-firm/asset-management/hedge-fund-solutions-(baam)
I couldn’t find the Blackstone hedge fund listed in RPGAX’s last Annual Report (October, 2017). https://individual.troweprice.com/gcFiles/pdf/argaf.pdf I suspect that perhaps the SEC requires the report to separate out the individual securities (stocks and bonds) from the hedge fund and list each as if it were held individually by the fund. The report does, however, list a near 10% weighting in “alternative investments” - which likely reflects the Blackstone holding. (Short positions are hard to sort-out anyway - usually reflected in cash, bonds or liabilities - a bit over my head).
My Take Aways:
- With over 150 funds now under the T. Rowe Price umbrella, it’s become increasingly difficult to make fine distinctions among them. If you like the house you’ll probably do well over the longer term (10+ years ) with just about any of their equity or allocation funds.
- RPGAX is a “twist” on the conventional 60/40 “Balanced” Fund. By keeping equities pegged at 60% and dropping its bond allocation to 30%, the fund has a 10% “window” open to invest in alternatives. Since it costs a lot more to invest in alternative strategies (ie hedge funds) than bonds, doing so is a bet that over the next market cycle bonds aren’t going to perform as well as they have in the past. That thinking (whether you agree with it or not) ties in with a conundrum Ed Studzinski highlighted in a MFO commentary at least two years ago. Roughly paraphrased (and grossly oversimplified): Bonds as part of a “balanced” strategy no longer offer the degree of downside protection they once did.
- One ingredient of hedge funds usually lacking in conventional mutual funds is the ability to sell short. TMSRX, for example, can short both equities and bonds. (In going both long and short they are, in effect, “hedging” their bets.) It’s proven a difficult tactic for mutual funds over the years. One demon is the higher cost of so doing. Further, the strategy’s very dependent on the manager’s ability to make correct calls - much more so than with long-only funds. A third problem is that these strategies typically fail to keep pace with “the market” - since they’re structured to “zig” when the broader markets “zag”. As a consequence, they tend to suffer large outflows from investors at precisely the wrong times.

@CathyG, Not offended at all as most of us often see things in different colors. I'm probally one of the older investors on the board. I started investing back in the 60"s while in my teens. And, through the years I have built a sizeable portfolio. Back when I started investing one did not have the choices they have today and there were not a lot of no load fund shops around that were easy to invest in; and, for the ones that were you had to invest directly with the fund company. I was young and it was easy for me to stop by a neighborhood investment shop and deposit a few dollars into my account from time-to-time. My first two funds were Franklin Income and Income Fund of America. Both of these funds provided me exposure to the capital markets (cash, bonds & stocks). Plus, I could see the income that they gerenated as their size built. Pop's said income will never go out of style. He was right.
My great grandfather was an investor, my grand parents were inestors, my parents were investors, I'm an investor and so is my son. With this most of the commissions paid were many, many years ago and over time many of these mutual fund investments migtrated from one generation to another through transfers.
While some bark about sales loads they are missing an important message. Start early in investing putting a few dollars back while you'r young and continue to do this letting the power of compounding work. I'm totally surprised as to what my portfolio has become.
I have no regrets that I started investing though commission based funds; and, even today, for me, they are still my low cost option over broker accounts that charge wrap fees, etc. And, I understand why they want me to convert as they will make more. I ask them (from time-to-time) when the subject comes up ... What was so wrong with the Old_ School Way? Today, brokers are young folks and their assignment is to gather money putting it into fee based programs. They can't build and construct a portfolio as the old_school brokers could. They simply do a risk assement and then place you into one of their firms investment programs that fit your risk assement.
Old_Skeet is staying old_school.
Wishing you the very best with your investing endeavors.
Old_Skeet

Hello! I just signed up and need some input. I'm 43 and started investing about 12 years ago, but left a taxable account dormant until last year when I was left two IRAs from my folk's passing and added to the taxable account as well. One of the accounts is managed at JP Morgan where the adviser suggested PONAX/PIMIX respectively. On his suggestion, I set up all 3 accounts with PONAX as my core fixed income holding. My questions are:
1. Ever since I set them up, they've been losing a little each day (Ugh!, although the monthly dividends are good). I understand about the rising interest rates, but should I be concerned? This money won't be touched for a good 20 years and of course I want performance, but mostly peace of mind for the long haul.
2. Should I consider diversifying my fixed income with something other than PIMCO, such as a total bond fund like Vanguard, or anything else? I like simplicity, but concerned about all my egg's in one basket.
As an amateur, I'm here for education, so will mostly be in lurker mode. Many thanks! Starchild.

@davidrmoran
Thanks for the follow-up, David. The only fund I invested over $100,000 in has been VTMFX. That was several years ago and performed as I expected since then by cutting my entire portfolio losses significantly during bad times, but still giving enough better returns than CDs during the good times. But now, I'm reducing even that fund significantly as I don't want to keep that high overall percentage of bond funds.

OK. Thanks for the words, obviously informed statements. I just never heard of a mutual fund doing such a thing: investing in a hedge fund. And perhaps right now is not the time? It's a global fund, and there's a ton of political feces going around about now. I would be diversifying away from holding so very much in PRWCX. It's 35% of my stuff. And when I look at performance numbers between the two, I could do nothing at all and come out better off. I can build some cash. Which I've neglected to do for all these years, and eventually put THAT into RPGAX. I would do RPGAX as a regular investment account. In a couple of years, I'm going to stop re-investing everything, and take profits, whether dividends or cap. gains, for current income. Wife will continue to work, at age 45. And it will happen somewhere other than here. AMEN. Thanks, guys.

Fascinating to watch how value comparatively fails from 15y on it, by year, when you do $10k-growth graphing.
If you do that, be sure to include RPG and RPV (can't start 15y ago), to assess how 'large-capness' is key.
Growth has really taken off the last couple years.
For the last 5.5y it was interesting (for me) to see how CAPE differs from LCV, when it does.

Morn'in @Old_Skeet
You noted above in this thread:
"Today, most fee based accounts (new school way) charge at least a 1% fee on balances held within these fee based wraper accounts plus the investor pays fees on the mutual funds themselves. That's fees on top of fees."
I know some folks who use advisers; some small independent advisers as well as the larger companies with whom some smaller advisers have become a part of over the years.
In either case, 1% is an average fee; being "adviser fee" for the small, independent organizations and the name "wrapper fee" for the large organizations.
As you note "wrapper fees"; I will presume some of your investments are inside of a large, adviser organization.
***A few questions:
---Based upon your writings, I presume you manage your own investment choices.
With this in mind (if accurate), what is your advantage to maintain an account that charges 1% for doing none of the work?
--- 2. Regarding your investment firm connection and that your investments are likely stuck with this firm. Is one able to negotiate the "wrap fee"? If they are not really providing an adviser service, why give away 1% of your hard earned monies?
Thank you.
Catch

@ Old_Skeet
@davor
Thanks for your replys. It appears I need to see tax accountant. I was about ready to trash account info from wife who passed a number of years back. I've kept accounts separated so this should help.
Thanks again,
Derf

Hi @Derf,
Thanks for the question.
The transfers came several ways. Those by gift retained the donor's cost basis. Those that came by inheritance received cost basis step ups. Since they were retitled, to me, years back they have appreciated in value. Thus sizeable capital gains have been built through my years of ownership.
With this, I now sell some fund shares annually and harvest some of these capital gains. Kind of a self built annuity (of sorts).
Old_Skeet

Hello,
Last week Old_Skeet's market barometer finished the week with a reading of 161 indicating that the S&P 500 Index was oversold based upon the barometer's metrics. This week the barometer closed the week with a reading of 155 indicating that the Index has now moved to an undervalue reading.
Although, I closed out my spiffs a couple of weeks ago I move some spiff sell proceed money into my emerging market fund (NEWFX) last week; and, this week I added to my commodity strategy fund (PCLAX) which gained better than 5% this past week.
Years back I was more of a momentum strategy investor and have migrated more towards a modern portfolio theory investor. My portfolio returns were much higher under momentum strategies than they have been under modern portfolio theory. With this, I am moving some money back into momentum strategies although I never did completely leave momentum. PCLAX is a momentum position within my portfolio. This week, I may continue with momentum and put some money to work in my small/mid cap sleeve or I may continue to build my commodity position should it maintain it's upward move.
Wishing all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

Over the last 2-3 years I'm actually seeing the pendulum swing WAY to the other side. Surprising to see large financial firms not getting ahead of such things. At a minimum they don't need such press.
So much for their ANALytical capabilities for picking stocks and bonds. First figure out your employees.

@CathyG, In responding to your question on global equity funds held many of my global equity fund exposure have been held since the 70's in family portfolios. Some of them were passed on from gift and inheritance transfers. They might not be the ones I'd buy today although, through the years, they have served the family well.
In my global equity sleeve found in the growth & income area the funds held are American Funds, Capital World Growth & Income (CWGIX), Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Dividend Income Fund A (EADIX) and Dreyfus Global Equity Income Fund A (DEQAX).
In my global growth sleeve found in the growth area the funds held are American Funds New Perspective Fund A (ANWPX), American Funds Small Cap World Fund A (SMCWX) and Thornburg Global Opportunities Fund A (THOAX).
My emerging markets fund, American Funds New World A (NEWFX) is held in my specialty sleeve which is found in the growth area of the portfolio. In addition, this sleeve also holds my ALPS Global Private Equity Fund A (LPEFX) and my Virtus Global Infrastructure Fund (PGUAX).
These three sleeves would be where my global all equity funds are held. I have another sleeve that holds my global hybrid funds. The funds held within this sleeve are American Funds Capital Income Builder A (CAIBX), Pioneer Multi Asset Income A (PMAIX) and Thornburg Income Builder A (TIBAX).
Hope this helps.
Old_Skeet

FPA Crescent has been long Naspers and short Tencent as a paired trade for years.

Hi @CathyG
First, this portion is in regards to your question in another thread about the method used so that you may respond directly to another member and, second, that that member should also receive an email from MFO indicating their psuedo name has been noted in a thread message; or that someone has posted into a thread that they/you initiated.
---When you sign-into MFO, as you have to read this; immediately below your screen name and next to your avatar image (upper left section of this page) you should see "red" indicator in the "Notifications" icon with a "number" for how many notifications you have received within MFO from others.
---You may have at least 2 from me for this thread; one for using your MFO name and another for responding to a message thread started by you.
---When commenting to another, using the "at symbol" immediately followed by your name will send a notify message to their email. Maintain a "space" in front of the "at" symbol and a space after your name to assure the system performs this process properly.
Early in the day here and not fully up to coffee level; so I hope this makes some sense. You have probably already seen and figured out about the notification.
As to value and growth; I've never been a "pure" value fan. In theory, in my head; is that a value stock or fund should be/have a "buy low and sell high potential". But, I always have to ask, why is the stock or fund considered value in the first place. Is the area merely out of favor for period or is the stock or fund in a never-ending cycle for a good reason.
A worse-case example would be the early days of General Motors. The Dort Carriage Company (owned by some of the same folks who founded GM) was fast becoming a "value" company with the birth of the engine powered "carriage". But, surely there were folks who thought that the auto was not about to replace the horse drawn carriage. The carriage company, in a few years, became a ultimate value company; to the point of disappearing, while GM was the growth investment, yes?
There remains for any number of reasons, as to why the growth sector goes through cycles where the companies are out of favor/oversold and do become a "form" of value, but within the growth area. This is where my brain attempts to process the "buy low/hold/sell high" conditions. Value for the sake of value just doesn't do "it" for our house.
---A more recent example of two, long term wonderful growth funds are: FDGRX and FCNTX . I don't recall all events of the period, but these 2 funds, as well as large growth in general were in a funk from April, 2015 through Nov., 2016 (election). Those who purchased this area during this early time period likely scratched their heads about performance for this period. This is my best thought/view of "value"; but value within a growth area. This is where I attempt to find and understand what is going on.....but, with more profit potential versus a long term holding of a stock or fund that has been "value" directed for too long and "their/that" ship never comes in..........
Some investments have their day(s) in the sun and behind the clouds.....market cycles???
Sample: Vanguard value vs growth etf's
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?VTV,VUG&p=6&O=011000
---Bonds: Up until about 1 year ago we could and have run for shelter to investment grade bonds when the equity sector became twitchy......not the case today; except for the traders. At least, not to the case to make some money in this area during a down move in equity. The great bond run for excess profits, at least today/right now is flat, IMHO.
Does this make sense and/or readable to understand???
Okay, I have an early appointment today and must become presentable; and still need more coffee.
I'll do a @Old_Joe here and he should be directed to this thread, via a notification, to discover whether I've said anything nasty about him, as he will see my MFO name attached to the email he will receive......of which, I can't think of anything nasty to write about him. :)
Take care,
Catch

Since it's been a couple of years since I last checked my 4 Portfolios, I'm re-reviewing all of my investments. I used to follow M* recommendations for proportion of Value vs Growth balance, and it did appear then and in the past that Value companies DID eventually come back in favor during tougher times to help mitigate the usually much larger Growth fund losses. After all, "shares of a company with solid fundamentals that are priced below those of its peers, based on analysis of price/earnings ratio, yield, and other factors." (they put it better than I tried to)
But, in checking "VALUE" Mutual Funds and ETFs, ALMOST ALL of them have had greater losses than MANY of the Growth funds DURING the DOWN TIMES, along with the expected LOWER GAINS during the good times. This is not just for the period YTD, but over the last several years.
In looking at many of the actual stocks/companies that are considered "VALUE", so many just seem "Old School" to me, and ones that have not - and will likely not in the future - keep up with what is, and has clearly been for a couple of years, the overall market demands. (And, besides, so many of them I am philosophically opposed to).
The same seems to be true of almost all BOND funds. We've been at these incredibly low interest rates for a long time, so bond funds have been a good counter-investment, with enough minimal gains and certainly far less losses. Even though the government (and others) have clearly stated that there will be regular 3-4 annual increases, I'm thinking it could be at least another year or two. But, at any rate, most BOND FUNDS have not been doing well enough to end up with much more than CDs.
So I would really like to hear your opinions. I am considering keeping so-called "VALUE" and BOND funds to a MINIMUM, and keeping my LARGE % of CASH as my alternative option to those. The cash would then be used to ADD to my existing GROWTH funds WHEN THEIR MARKET WAS DOWN over 10% (assuming those funds were still logical to keep).

YACKX way underperformed the S&P 500 over its first 3 years (26.3% cumulative vs. 46.5%) and its first 5 years (99.9% cumulative vs. 153%). That was to July 1997. The spread in performance only got worse for the rest of the decade, until the dot com bubble burst. For two years, March 31, 1998 to March 31, 2000, it managed to lose 30% even as the S&P 500 was gaining 40%.
(All data from M*'s charts.)
For nearly a full decade, from inception in '92 through the 90s, the fund looked miserable. That did not mean that Donald Yacktman's glory days were left behind at Selected American. It just meant that the market was not good at the time for his style of value investing.