bee said, "Is TROW a good buy or is PRWCX about to correct?"
@bee Wouldn't touch your question with a 10 foot pole - make that 15' :)
Here's a link back to TRP about the $194M write-off they took back in June after botching a proxy vote on Dell. https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/corporate/en/press/t--rowe-price-to-compensate-clients-for-dell-voting-error.html This received a lot of press (mostly favorable) back in June and was broadly lauded as testament to the firm's integrity and shareholder commitment. (I don't recall any discussion here.) But I'd imagine it impacted their share price. The WSJ appears to have more on this - but I have trouble reading it without a subscription, so didn't link them.
PRWCX, BTW, isn't having a particularly good year after several great ones. Manager has become very cautious on the market and is no doubt dealing with bloat - though it's now closed to new investors. If one wanted to have some fun with play money (assuming he/she held a favorable opinion of the firm) he might invest 50/50 in both the company and PRWCX and than rebalance periodically.
The future of T. Rowe? It's tough out there. They're small-fry compared to Vanguard, Blackrock and a few other giants. There's been a shift from actively managed funds to low cost passive funds and ETFs going on for many years now and I see no signs of it abating. Over the past year, if my reading of Barrons serves me well, Price experienced net outflows - though not as severe as Oppenheimer and some other active managers. I'd expect continued shrinkage or consolidation among companies in their segment of the market.
---
PS: Asset managers are to an extent subject to the whims of the markets. In a sharply declining equity market AUMs fall - reducing profits. This interplay between investors' and advisors' outlooks for equity markets and the re-pricing of asset managers like Price is far too complex for my feeble mind to understand. But it's not inconceivable that (future) market expectations are impacting TROW's valuation. (PRWCX would be expected to hold up better during a sharp correction than TROW.)

Interesting... the stock price of TROW is trading at its lowest price in over a year. In fact, you have to go back to its 4 year low (Sept 2012) to match today's stock price. The stock is up 36% over the last ten years which included the 2009 great-cession.

Over the past 10 years TROW has more often out performed PRWCX, but that is not the case over the past year and half. (TROW in Yellow). Is TROW a good buy or is PRWCX about to correct?

Here's the most recent three performance of the two:

Just more of what has been occurring the past many months. Let's hope this move is for real and not a fake out like so many in the past several years.

Looks like it lasted then than 2 years.
Had amassed < $30 MM in AUM.

EM bonds:
FNMIX...... 10 year performance: +7.85%
PREMX: +6.87%.
Small-cap Value: TRP (PRSVX:) +6.92%
PRDGX (TRP LC Div. Growth:) +7.3%
Balanced: PRWCX: +8.16%
MAPOX: +6.81%
Global Bonds: PRSNX: (5 years) +4.94%. Too young for a 10-year number. By the way, MAINX will be 5 years old, soon. I no longer own it. But it looks good.

According to the latest SPIVA US Mid-Year report, over the past 10 years (includes 2008 downdraft) 81.94% and 81.82% of actively managed EM equity and EM bond funds, respectively, were outperformed by their benchmark indices.
Also, as I see it, many of the actively managed EM equity funds that have outperformed the indices, tend to have done so over relatively short time periods (BEXFX - since 2010, SIGIX - since 2012), and have a significantly different average market cap (SIGIX) and EM stock exposure (SIGIX) than the comparison benchmark.
SPIVA
Kevin

John, I got into the Schwab-robo in April, 2015. duranal sounds like he or she did a nice comparison to help him choose. Me, I already had my IRA at Schwab so I wasn't going to open another account when it was so easy to click some buttons in my existing account to make it happen. Couple comments off the top of my head:
- the Schwab questionnaire that is meant to look at your age and risk tolerance in order to place you at the "appropriate" equity weighting was annoying. I wanted this to be a 60% equity weighted portfolio, but after answering the questions it had me less than 50%. The local Schwab financial adviser I work with didn't like the system either, so we decided to just fudge the answers until we got the mix I wanted. I opened my account the 1st week the Intelligent portfolio was introduced, so maybe they changed that aspect.
- I don't really mind the cash element. A lot of articles I read at the start didn't like the idea, but I saw it as a buffer that could play out better than bonds over the next few years. My cash portion is 10%.
- the portfolio is weighted heavier than I would have expected international and EM. That did not fair well mid-way through 2015 and I questioned the move when returns faltered. Since then returns have been good to very good in my opinion. My portfolio is up 9.84% YTD and about 5.7% over 1 year.
- I also liked the idea of investing in a diversified portfolio where someone else is watching diversification, balancing and reinvesting the dividends. With it, there is never the erg to buy the new hot fund or move things around at just the wrong time (which I was pretty good at).
- I didn't turn my entire IRA into the robo. I did 1/2. I still like the challenge of building my own portfolio and watching the results. If anything, the robo process has taught me build it, watch it but don't tinker. I believe everything I've read now about investors shooting themselves in the foot trying to out think the system is true. Most of us lose money doing this.
Good luck with your decision.

FYI: It doesn’t seem like much to ask for—a 5 percent return. But the odds of making even that on traditional investments in the next 10 years are slim, according to a new report from investment advisory firm Research Affiliates.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2016-10-26/the-next-10-years-will-be-ugly-for-your-401-k

"Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index's low costs overcome concerns about country weightings," writes Oey in her latest analyst report.

I'm not sure I follow that line of reasoning. Is she saying that, if the cost of an index (or, for that matter, any MF) is low enough, you need not be concerned by a portfolio's very overweighted/skewed allocation? Because the low cost "overcomes" any concerns one might have? How does that work?

I don't follow it either, and here's an example of how that reasoning might "work" in practice, in dollars and cents, comparing, for the sake of argument, VEIEX to BEXFX over the past five full calendar years.
VEIEX's E.R. is lower by 1.12% a year, but it trailed BEXFX in total return (including E.R., of course) by 4.31% in 2015, 3.05% in 2014, 19.9% in 2013, 4.34% in 2012, and 1.58% in 2011 -- so not a single year represented when its lower E.R. made a difference in relative performance. (Data from M* performance pages.)

In the vein of "a fresh look" at MLPs, I was doing some semi-purposeful browsing around this past weekend and came upon a change in June re. how FSDIX will be allocated, viz. the addition of MLPs to the dvd-paying stock sleave (up to 10%, oh yes). Fidelity is thinking of it as a strategy "enhancement":
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/analysis/316145887

Joanna Bewick on upcoming enhancements to the fund:
"In June 2016, a new out-of-benchmark subportfolio providing dedicated exposure to MLPs – master limited partnerships – will be created within the fund's dividend-paying equities allocation. This as of yet unfunded subportfolio will allow Ford and me to opportunistically allocate as much as 10% of fund assets to MLPs.
"An MLP combines the benefits of a limited partnership – a business structure wherein taxes apply only to unitholder distributions and not to corporate-level profits – with the liquidity of a publicly traded company. We think MLPs are a potentially rich source of investment yield as well as predictable and stable cash distributions. Most often, MLPs are backed by energy companies, with typically modest organic revenue growth that can increase alongside inflation; thus we believe MLPs also offer potential for capital appreciation.
"In our view, the addition of the MLP subportfolio can help improve the fund's risk-adjusted returns by providing key diversification benefits. Further, this change may offer the fund a diversifying source of alpha in keeping with its mandate to deliver non-bond income along with capital-appreciation potential.
"Nathan Strik, a 10-year energy veteran with 15-years of industry experience, has been appointed portfolio manager for the new MLP subportfolio.
"We believe these changes should improve our asset allocation flexibility and allow us to take greater advantage of the investment expertise of Fidelity in positioning the fund to better meet our shareholders' expectations.
"For more than 10 years, the fund has offered a compelling option for non-bond, income-seeking investors, in our view. Our goal with the addition of this new MLP subportfolio is to help make the fund an even more compelling investment option for the next 10 years – and beyond."

I hope this isn't redundant; I don't recall anyone on the Board posting about it.

TD has minimum buys of 100 and 250 on the low-end for many funds I've stumbled across over the years, so I think you'd probably be okay.

@LLJB. I've successfully gotten over falling in love with ANY fund. So I don't want my shares to be grandfathered. I'm okay selling any fund. My problem is I don't want them charging my hefty commissions.
What about $100 minimum to buy? Schwab started and Scottrade and Etrade followed. Dunno about Ameritrade.

Oh, of course. It is that time of the month again. They have to mention American funds.
Personally I've been looking at FTEMX for years, but somehow never pulled the trigger. I got back into SFGIX after they announced closing but hardly have anything. I'm going to keep patient. If I lose, I lose.

@VintageFreak, I would give them a bit of time to get organized but eventually I'd call customer service and ask them to grandfather Scottrade's pricing for you or whatever you'd like to keep. I did that successfully many years ago during another combination but I'm pretty sure I waited until the merger was complete before I made my request.

In response to BobC's above question.
Below is my best guess, thoughts and comments.
Not speaking for American Funds but from the perspective of one of their mutual fund investors I am thinking it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to move to only a one share class fund firm due to, the no doubt, many revenue sharing agreements they have in place with the many other financial firms they have developed relationships with through the years. Thus the large number of fund share classes necessary to serve this large and broad base of investors that they now serve through many venues.
I am an A fund share holder that paid a one time front load commission (through the years) and, with this, I received nva exchange prividledges among their A share funds without having to pay another sales charge. These sales charges, from my memory, ranged form 3.5% to 5.75% depending on the fund I was buying without applying other discounts. I'm thinking the brokerage wrap accounts that many firms have moved to that have on going fees associated with these type accounts and that I have the better deal. I have seen annual wrap fee schedules of better than 1.5% for some wrap accounts with most being around the 1.0% range and a few back of that.
I have owned some American Funds for better than thiry years with some funds that I now own were owned for years by my parents before being passed to me through gift and inheritance transfers. When you consider the number of years these funds have been owned the sales load spread over the years owned is very small. Now an on going annual account wrap and/or advisor retainer fee paid over these same years would be very, very large.
I'm thinking long term investors need to determine which route will be the best for them while I can undestand some short term investors might find more favor in the wrap fee account who wish to move in and out of their positions and trade a lot. There are some restrictions on how many nav transfers I can make over a given time span. These restrictions are designed to prevent a lot of in and out trading but do allow for repositioning my portfolio from time-to-time.
Also, know American Funds is not the only family of funds that I am invested with as they are mostly a large cap value shop. Some of the other fund families are Alger, Alps, Blackrock, Columbia, Delaware, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, First Investors, Franklin, Guggenheim, Invesco, Hotchkis & Wiley, J P Morgan, Loomis Sayles, Lord Abbett, Neuberger & Berman, Principal, Prudential, Sun America, Thornburg, Virtus and perhaps a few others that I missed. All of these fund families allow for nav exchanges within their family of funds so my cost to move around within their family of funds and reposition my portfolio from time-to-time is at no cost to me.
From my thinking there are no ongoing annual wrap account fees and/or advisor sales commissions, for me, as my sales charges have already been paid except for the small 12b-1 fee that applies on some of the funds I own.
Yep, I'm thining I've got the better deal over wrap fee based accounts and fee based advisors who charge annual retainer fees.
Old_Skeet

But remember that most public employees also have a pretty generous pension plan that is far better than Social Security. Why else would the politicians not be a part of SS? Our experience has been that public employees who also have contributed to 403b (yes, most have hideous fee structures) plans are often in financially strong shape at retirement. Most mutual fund companies opted out of 403b plans years ago, so that left only those funds run by insurance companies as options for many plan participants. Interesting that a number of quality fund companies (T.R. Price, for example) remained in the 457 business, which is a plus for those folks who qualify.

Davidmoran, could you provide more information on the "subpar performance" of the low-vol funds? I am not challenging your comment, but the ones we follow, specifically SPHD and SPLV, have out-performed their benchmarks rather nicely. Although SPLV is a bit under the S&P 500 YTD, it has done better over 2 & 3 years. Over five it is a bit lower, but it has done so with much less volatility. SPHD has run rings around the index. Understand that I do not expect it to continue its blazing path, as it has shown signs of weakening the last 1-3 months. But it is hard to argue with its overall performance. The same could be said for XMLV versus MDY. Some have suggested this is a fad. Perhaps. But so far, at least, when the index swoons, these have held up pretty well.

Don Yacktman is no longer of part of management.
His son, Steve, and co-manager, Jason Subotky have been running Yacktman funds for last several years. Both Yacktman and Yacktman Focus funds are concentrated that focus on few sectors.

I agree the ever-expanding # of AF share classes is an exercise in excessive extremes.
However, I do appreciate their multi-manager approach, and it's served me well over the years.

Hi. Hank,
I certainly do agree with much of what has been posted on this exchange, especially your last posting. On this topic, with the same prime time players (Jaffe, Natixis), this is the second time around the horn for you. I'll provide a Link a little later.
Just like no financial advisor is created equal, no financial writers are created equal either. And separate columns composed by each writer are not equal. Brilliance is hard to maintain on any timescale.
This Jaffe column might not belong on the brilliant side of the scoring, but it is not a dud either. Jaffe has been using the Natixis work for a long time. For example, you commented on a similar column about two years ago. Here is the internal Link to the column and your comments:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/13442/chuck-jaffe-proof-most-investors-are-clueless-david-giunta-pres-natixis-global-asset-management
It is not surprising that Natixis uses a hired firm to conduct their surveys. That's a common practice. We do the same when we hire mutual fund managers to fill our portfolios with companies of their choosing. Nothing unusual about interpreting results generated by an outfit that you hired. Natixis uses Core Data to do their survey legwork. Here is a Link that describes the Core Data organization and some of their talent:
http://www.coredataresearch.com/about/our-approach/
Core Data seems to have the capabilities to do worldwide surveys. It doesn't disturb me one whit that Natixis does its own interpretation of the data collected.
I certainly agree with you that the summary conclusions you listed are mundane if they were the only conclusions or stats presented. But they were not. Just about each page of the white paper provided some detailed statistics associated with both advisors and their clients.
I also agree that the referenced white paper was designed for financial advisors, and not for private investors. That does not diminish the value of the surveys. These surveys still identify shortfalls in both advisor and individual investor thinking and planning.
This takes us back to the Jaffe article that prompted this hot exchange: investors "are Probably Way Too Optimistic About Your Investment Returns". Most of the postings don't argue this assertion. In any final analyses, that's what it is all about. A casual charge that Jaffe and Natixis are BSers is far too extreme. Certainly any analysis or article has shortfalls. Exceptions simply do not exist.
Sorry for the delay in my response. My wife and I are celebrating her 77th birthday. It's been a grand day.
Best Wishes.

Dear S. Disturber, (aka, @Old_Joe )
Could be either or both, depending upon how well the advisors surveyed actually performed for their customer base; as the Natixis whitepaper is apparently directed at a captive crowd of company connected advisors.
I did read that "alternative investments" seem to be on the "next or current" hot plate of places for money to travel; if the client is in the $1-4 million dollar portfolio arena.
If and when an investment advisor can provide a true document to me of how they performed for portfolio type "x", over the past 10, 5 and 1year time frames, that would have been or is suitable for me today, I'll listen.
The most simple baseline would be to compare against the inexpensive VWINX.
Below in bold, from the 2015 whitepaper linked prior:
Investment Pragmatist: More than three-quarters of advisors believe that a
traditional stock and bond portfolio is no longer enough to effectively manage
risk and pursue returns. Fortunately, continual innovation has provided access
to new asset classes, new pricing structure and new portfolio tools, allowing
advisors to make practical decisions about which tool will best fit client goals
and investment objectives.
I wish these folks (advisors and clients) well with the alternative path.
The below fund link at about 40/60, equity/bond over the long term. Pick your own equity/bond mix, a built your own, eh? My own caution note for such a mix is that some bond types may blow up at any time, and I would always advise to be observant. 'Course, folks here are always paying attention, yes? And don't forget that the death of the 30+ year bond market bull continues to be issued by someone, somewhere; one would suspect. I recall its imminent death announcement here several years ago (the thread exists somewhere, eh?), but I don't have time for search; although I recall Mr. Snowball was involved in the discussion).
VWINX performance
VWINX composition
Lastly, I have had several pre-Halloween treats today; in order to sample the quality of what we will distribute to the young ones. Hopefully, this has not affected, greatly, my ability to think or write. 'Course, in reading this before posting; I sound a bit arrogant, eh?
Well, I know I am as smart and do as well as some financial advisors on this planet.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Mr. Catch