@Ted How many years did it take you to learn how to use emoticons? It's like you have a new toy.

Found this comment by John Mauldin:
"I am not necessarily calling for an end to this amazing bull market. I’m agnostic about that right now, because the traditional forecasting tools have been taken to the woodshed."
While he is certainly not a perma-bear, he has never been giddy about markets, either. Those who have been yelling from the sidelines for a number of years have become more or less skulkers.

FYI: In the 30 years ended 2016, the S&P 500 returned just over 10% per year. Compounding at that rate, fifty grand invested at the start of 1987 would have grown to nearly $875,000 by the end of last year.
Not bad.
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2017/08/managing-sequence-of-return-risk/

Though PRWCX was "hatched" a mere 8 months after PRFDX (6/30/86 vs. 10/31/85). At the end of 1994 PRFDX had $3.2B AUM, while PRWCX had "merely" $655M.

Thanks for the documentation msf. I find the closeness of inception dates (PRFDX, PRWCX) surprising.
When I mentioned integrity, one of the attributes I've found with Price is that they do a nice job explaining their funds and the type of investors who might benefit. If anything, they'll probably over-state risk rather than lull someone into owning one of their funds who shouldn't. That practice hasn't changed over the years.
I recall that they presented both PRFDX and PRWCX in the mid-90s as relatively "safe" ways to gain equity exposure. But their presentation regarding PRWCX seemed more subdued / conservative then than now. Not sure if the fund has evolved into a more aggressive fund or whether they're simply being more cautious now due to its popularity. Today, PRWCX ($28.6 Bil) is closed, while PRFDX ($21.7 Bil) remains open to new investors. (numbers from Lipper).

Hi Guys,
There is no universal correct answer to the fund management question. It depends on the specifics. Most funds these days are team managed, like 75% of them. For this majority, the answer is in the No bracket. But a respectable number of funds are managed by a mostly single or small group cohort that has a decisive influence on market decisions. It matters in this active group of fund managers.
The primary example here is the Warren Buffett/Charley Munger team. Any change here will likely have a major impact on how their firm will survive amd function. Even with this illustrious team, yearly performance varies over a wide range. Skill matters when investing, but luck and opportunities are unpredictable and also enter the performance equation. In the marketplace, the only certainty is outcome uncertainty.
Certainly not all fund managers are equal. Do you remember the Steadman fund family? I do. Those funds had dismal performance records for many years. Just like there are some long term losers, there are some long term winners. The trick is to identify them early. That's not an easy job.
Good luck for a successful search. A significant number of exceptions always exist.
Best Wishes
ADDED THOUGHT: Statistics are helpful, but can be misleading when incompletely reported. It is not enough to simply report the average of a Normal distribution. That's nice, but not enough. The standard deviation, the maximum and minimum values, and the sample size are needed to permit a meaningful interpretation of that statistic. Buyer beware!

Comparing VHCOX and POGRX, the Vanguard fund is larger cap, less volatile (lower std deviation), slightly lower beta (relative to the best fit R3K growth) over the past three and five years, smaller downside capture. All of these suggest that VHCOX is, if anything, slightly less aggressive than POGRX. That's following your lead, equating aggressiveness with volatility.
The two funds have essentially the same number of holdings (136 vs. 128) though VHCOX is slightly more concentrated (32% in top ten vs. 26%), similar sector allocations (except that VHCOX seems to favor industrials a bit more and financials a bit less), the same foreign/domestic ratio, the same developed/emerging ratio, perhaps suggesting that VHCOX is slightly more aggressive than POGRX in its holdings.
I agree that VHCOX is the most aggressive of the Vanguard trio, but ISTM that it's not more aggressive than POGRX. It just happens to have done better over the past five years (though matched performance over the past ten). That makes is better performing, not more aggressive.
FWIW, M* says of POGRX that it is already more volatile and aggressive than all three of the Vanguard Primecap funds including VHCOX, with POAGX even more so.

If you're young, willing to stay in a fund for a long time despite volatility, and can sleep well at night after a potential significant decline, you could add Capital Opportunity. If it were me, I'd be happy with POGRX, and just sit tight. If you overlay these funds on the same graph, you'll see they all have very similar performance profiles. The two that are somewhat different are Capital Opportunity, and Primecap Odyssey Aggressive Growth, which I would characterize as being more aggressive (and therefore somewhat more volatile) than the others (which are very similar to each other). I was fortunate to open an account in POAGX several years ago, and am very happy with it; I plan to hold it for a long time.

I cancelled my M* Premium membership in 2005 --12 years ago !! because of all the M* website problems .---- 12 years later and it has only gotten worse !!!! UNBELIEVABLE

It's not the same Price I first invested with sometime between 1990 and 1995. Too d** many funds now days if you ask me. Not sure what they offered back than. I'll make a (probably incorrect) guess that it was around 30-40 funds in the '90-'95 period (not counting different share classes). Back than PRFDX was in large part their claim to fame. Around that period PRWCX was hatched. And it played second fiddle to the much larger PRFDX for a decade or longer.

Not too far off. M* shows 53 distinct funds that began no later than 12/31/95. About 1/3 of the number of funds they have now (155, again from M*).
Though PRWCX was "hatched" a mere 8 months after PRFDX (6/30/86 vs. 10/31/85). At the end of 1994 PRFDX had $3.2B AUM, while PRWCX had "merely" $655M. (Data from 1995 prospectuses.)
Price had other claims to fame as well at the time, including PRNHX, then (and for another 15 years) managed by Laporte. At the end of 1994, The (then) small cap fund had $1.6B AUM.

It's not the same Price I first invested with sometime between 1990 and 1995. Too d** many funds now days if you ask me. Not sure what they offered back than. I'll make a (probably incorrect) guess that it was around 30-40 funds in the '90-'95 period (not counting different share classes). Back than PRFDX was in large part their claim to fame. Around that period PRWCX was hatched. And it played second fiddle to the much larger PRFDX for a decade or longer.
I realize they need to stay competitive with their peers and so need to provide lots of choices and attract more and more assets. Also, that there's some practical limitation to how much $$ a manager wants to manage inside one fund. Haven't had a chance to delve into this latest offering. But all the comments here sound interesting and thought provoking. Doesn't sound like a fund I'd be interested in adding to my established mix.
Price is a class act in a lot of ways - customer service and integrity among them. The $20 fee used to pertain to accounts a lot smaller than it does now. Seems to me the magic number was once $5,000. In recent years that jumped to $10,000 or $20,000. Not a problem. If you keep a relatively modest $50,000 under their umbrella or go to paper statements only (as msf and others have noted) they waive the fees.

Wait, whose point are you making??
Romney was weak (worse than weak, but putting it nicely) in any number of respects, and latterly has become rehabbed into this ersatz statesman quite by default.
Five years after your article, Baker has brought the state back to its ever attractive vibe, for several reasons, and it remains a place companies look to for all sorts of advantages; see the article I posted.
If I were in the 1%, or close, I would not be hanging out here looking for smart ideas. If I were a rightwingnut, hmm, don't know what I would be opposing, depends on which flavor...

I seem to remember that a few years back, this fund was one that a lot of posters on this site loved. Definitely one of those funds with a simple strategy that worked great -- until it didn't.

Hello,
For what it is worth ...
It is the many perspectives, strategies and thoughts put into action that make the markets. And, yes I invest to put coins in my pocket to improve my standard of living. From my own experience you have to get beyond the fear of loosing some money along the way to become a winner and enjoy the benefits of success. I have found that, for me, it is best to harvest profits from my portfolio along the way to keep the unrealized gains from becoming vaporized in stock market downdrafts. And, also to have a sell down (not sell out) strategy in place as the markets decline to raise some cash if one is short of it within their asset allocation.
I feel it better to maintain a well diverisfied portfolio over just being invested in the S&P 500 Index. But, in just investing in the 500 Index through the years can make you a winner even though it is not my preferred way. In investing the concept is to grow your principal over time while in trading it is to make profit over short time spans.
Skeet

Yes, let's follow the herd and dump domestic mid and small cap, and dump any international we might have that we didn't already dump. And then, when the S&P 500 has a drop of 10-15%, we will all sell at the low point, just as we did about 10 years ago. Unfortunately, that's why lemmings have such a bad reputation.

FWIW, given the fund's big manager turnover and rather high expenses for mostly AAA-rated debt, and lack of asset base ($9 million), I would look elsewhere. Vanguard's VFSUX has a better long-term record for teeny expenses. Yeah, Vanguard has higher duration, but that really applies to more sudden jumps in interest rates rather than the 0.25% moves we have seen the last two years. If I want to pay what SEMRX charges, I would own OSTIX for higher yield and much longer management experience.

http://www.palmersquarecap.com/about/commentary has some interesting commentary about their approaches.
These people (Palmer Square) run PSYPX
When you look at their 'team' they are a lot of smart people - all about 40-45 years old.
They try to focus on credit markets - on the other hand they took a beating in the later part of 2015, early 2016, or later 2016.
I think that the June 2015 podcast is interesting --- where they try to paint how difficult a time it was.
Did they learn from their mistakes? Well, they've made a big comeback but SEMRX looks steadier.
Right now PSYPX is heavily in Fannie Mae paper - altho' it is a small enough fund to be more nimble.
SEMRX lost several of their managers near the end of 2016 (one of whom, Vesta Marks, went to PSYPX)
The lead mgr has been there since inception - but loss of 4 other mgrs raises questions.
SEMIX(inst. class) /SEMRX (non inst. class) also has a lot of collateralized mortgage obligations --- more circuitous than straight fannie mae.

FYI: Pension Trustee Smith: I recommend to the committee that we liquidate our International
equity assets and index our equity exposure to the S&P 500. US stocks have outperformed
for the last 20 years, and I see no reason why that should not continue. Everyone knows
that the US is the strongest economy and market in the world.
This is a somewhat fictionalized version of a comment or conversation that has gone on in many
committee discussions over the last several years in one form or another. And why wouldn’t it?
Being a US equity investor over the past several years has felt glorious. The S&P 500 has trounced
the competition provided by other major developed and emerging equity markets. Over the last 7
years, the S&P is up 173% (15% annualized in nominal terms) versus MSCI EAFE (in USD terms),
which is up 71% (8% annualized), and poor MSCI Emerging, which is up only 30% (4% annualized).
Every dollar invested in the S&P has compounded into $2.72 versus MSCI EAFE’s $1.70 and MSCI
Emerging’s $1.30. Diversification theoretically sounds good, but as Yogi Berra said, “In theory there
is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.” Diversification in this particular
instance seems good in theory but not so much in practice.
So, shouldn’t we agree with Trustee Smith and throw in the towel, index all of our equity exposure
to the S&P 500, and call it a day? If our goal is compounding capital for the long term, which it is,
we would not just say “No,” but something akin to “Hell no!”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/research-and-commentary/strategies/asset-allocation/the-s-p-500-just-say-no.pdf
MarketWatch Article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/just-say-no-to-the-sp-500-and-buy-these-stocks-instead-say-gmos-strategists-2017-08-16/print

Synchrony Financial looks interesting and I would like to know more about. First impression is that it's interest rates are going to be high on specialty loans.
Any one have any information.
Looked at a Zero turn lawnmower the other day and it was company financed at 26% int.
per year for four years. I tried to buy with cash and not negotiable on price. Also a car lot offered the similar terms on a used car at 22% over the life of the loan.
It's a new dynamic make some money on the product and a killing on the finance charges.
Is cash good anymore???

TimesSquare Capital is a welcome addition. However, it will start with only a small sliver of the fund. Vanguard might send new cash its way while not reducing the amount managed by the other firms. Just a possibility - one that would minimize turnover.

Following the transition, TimesSquare Capital will initially manage a modest portion of the fund (less than 5%), with its allocation expected to grow over time. Schroders, which has managed the fund since its inception in 1996, will oversee approximately 66 per cent of the fund. Wellington, which was added as an advisor in 2010, will manage approximately 29 per cent of the fund with the remainder in equitized cash investments.

http://www.wealthadviser.co/2017/08/02/254593/timessquare-capital-join-advisory-team-vanguard-international-explorer-fund
Schroder is also a fine fit for this fund. It ran the fund well from its inception as Schroder International Smaller Companies (SSCIX) through 2002 when Vanguard acquired and rebranded it, until mid 2010 when Wellington was added as a manager.
I remain less than thrilled with Wellington's international management skills (as I've commented about before). VINEX did not fare particularly well in the first couple of years after the mid 2010 addition of Wellington. 2011 (90th percentile) and 2012 (68th percentile) were not good years, though it has generally done much better since (except last year).
If you want to get a purer view of how Wellington management has done with international small caps, you can look at HNSYX. It's been co-managed by Simon Thomas (who is the Wellington manager for VINEX) and Daniel Maguire (also of Wellington) since 2006. An okay fund, but not one that stands out.
Note that HSNYX was closed in 2016. It currently has $422M AUM. VINEX currently has $3.6B AUM, 29% of which (about $1B, i.e. over double the size of HSNYX) will continue to be managed by Wellington, at least for now.
Finally, I wonder whether the addition of TimesSquare Capital will accelerate VINEX's drift toward growth stocks. My vague recollection is that VINEX started out as a value fund. M* still classifies it as blend, though its portfolio drifted into growth three years ago, where it has remained.
Perhaps Vanguard will reduce Wellington's AUM and shift them to TimesSquare. The numbers suggest that would help improve the fund.

@LLJB,
Thank you for your question. I am sorry for the delayed response but I was out of pocket most of the day due to another family member's medical issues. I hate to be short with an answer but I also did not want my response to linger.
I use the Lipper Balanced Index for several reason. 1) It is easy to reference and track along with 2) it represents the combined performance of the most widely held hybrid funds plus 3) I have used it for a good number of years and have historical data that centers around it.
Since, my portfolio is pretty much a balanced portfolio with an equity allocation ranging form 45% to 55% equity. I use my market barometer which I have written about previsouly to drive an equity weighting matrix which in turn is used as an aid to help me throttle my equity allocation within my portfolio.
With this ... I felt the Lipper Balanced Index was a good choice for a bogey and, again, it has been my standard for a good number of years.
Thanks again, for your inquiry.
Skeet