PRCOX’s top 10 holdings resemble that of S&P500 index. Is 18% active enough to differentiate it from being a closet indexer fund ?
Here is the 5 year performance comparing it to VOO (tracks S&P500) and VUG (Vanguard Growth index). PRCOX mirrors VOO closely and it performed better in several years than that of VUG.
https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/prcox/chart

Howdy folks,
Whelp, silver blew through $100 and closed at $103. Gold is sitting a couple bucks shy of $5,000. Works for me.
We could see some profit taking at these numbers, but I don't see that changing any of the fundamentals. Observant summed it up pretty well with,
"The eye-popping gains — eclipsing even gold’s historic rally — have come as a surge of speculation
by retail investors has collided with a five-year shortfall in silver supply.
At the same time unusually high silver stockpiles in the US and China have drained supplies of bullion
from vaults in London, where global prices are set.
'It is the perfect storm,' says Philip Diehl, former director of the US Mint.
'We have been in a long-term supply deficit, and it is just getting worse.'”
On the demand side, we have Sovereign wealth funds and Central banks accumulating with the Debasement trade and the Sell America issue. We have enormous industrial demand and lastly, we have the Uncertainty / CYA trade. It all adds up and collides with a Supply issue. Perfect storm. The GSR is at 51 but seems to want to go lower. It peaked at 120 but the historical average (er, 2000 years) is 15. Personally, I'm waiting for it get down around 30 and at that point will start trading silver for gold. Not dollars on your life. The dollar is trash. Just garbage and it's going to zero. It will take a long while because they have no choice but to lower short term rates and print more money. With a $38T debt, they have the choice between breaking promises or paying it back with cheaper dollars. The latter is more politically attractive. They'll continue to lie about inflation while we all experience the truth. And internationally, the Sell America trade is picking up and will force long term rates higher. This is the beginning of the end of fiat currencies world wide. A fifty year experiment gone awry as it has done, repeatedly, since the Romans. Currencies backed by gold and silver restrict politicians from promising more than they can deliver so they ditch gold and silver and go fiat so they can print more money. Every time it happens it always end the same way -with runaway/hyper inflation and political upheaval. That, my friends, it where we're headed. It will take a while and at my age, my grandkids will benefit, but so what.
Some reading material.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/silver-price-continue-rise-200002982.html
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gold-tracks-best-week-since-2020-silver-breaches-100-in-stunning-rally-155625500.html
A silver 1964 circulated quarter is now worth $18. Back in Rome, an ounce of gold would buy you a nice toga and sandals. In the roaring twenties, an ounce of gold would buy a nice complete suit of clothes. Today, at $5000, an ounce of gold will still buy you an nice suit of clothes. Do you see the pattern? Gold and silver are still worth the same as forever but the value of the currency has gone down the toilet. Since 1913, the dollar has lost about 98% of its purchasing power.
Oh, and please dear God, stop believing any data out of Washington. Cripes, the calculations used to be accurate but the formulae were designed to dink the numbers. All of them - CPI, GNP, Employment. Now, the calculations are bullshit and anyone who ever shops for anything knows it.
BTW, I did add some copper miners with COPP and COPJ.
Cover your asses people.
And so it goes,
peace,
rono

"Buy low, sell high."
I don't invest in individual stocks (except for one stock) but I would heed the following advice if I did.
Bolding was added for emphasis.
"Don't gamble; take all your savings and buy some good stock
and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don't go up, don't buy it."
—Will Rogers

In my limited experience, 10 (about equally weighted) seems to be the minimum number of individual stocks to hold inside a portfolio basket / sleeve if you like sleeping at night. (Might even be higher). But the 6 I held for a couple months proved too volatile. Years past I got away with much higher allocations to particular stocks (occassionally over 5% of portfolio). Escaped without damage. But in hindsight it was foolish.

Good points made about Smead. Father and son have snagged interviews on CNBC in recent years, touting home builders and energy. Not surprisingly, performance has lagged seriously.

SMEAD Capital Management was previously headquarted in Seattle before moving to Phoenix.
The firm's founder, Bill Smead, was sometimes a guest on a locally-produced finance show.
Bill Smead's thoughts and comments were often very insightful.
The firm's original fund—Smead Value Fund—had performed extremely well until that time (>10 years ago).
I really liked Smead Value Fund but avoided it because of the high expense ratio.
I haven't been following the fund or the firm closely in recent years.

Interesting.
Earlier in the week I off-loaded a small basket of individual stocks (BRK-B about 40% of the lot and 5 other). The old expression "If you can't stand the heat ..." comes to mind. There's a reason mutual funds were invented and rose in popularity. Proceeds were redistributed across my fund portfolio and also used to beef up the dedicated cash position from below 20% to 22%. (There's substantial additional cash / bond exposure inside the diversified portfolio holdings). I'm coming off 3 very good double-digit years. No need to push limits at this time.
My "cash" position is split between PAAA and AGZD. The former holds short term collateralized debt similar to JAAA. The latter tracks a high quality intermediate / long duration bond index while cancelling out interest rate risk with shorts on treasuries. I recognize these, especially the former, are riskier than CDs. Should produce a percent or two over money market funds longer term.
BTW - Conventional wisdom says the risk markets will continue to roar until we get close to the mid-terms as the Admin pulls out all the stops. Probably correct. But not willing to risk life savings on that bet at this age.

how does a rightwing value fund manager talk about trump, who has destroyed his stock picks in multiple sectors? easy, he talks about problems manifesting from a window exactly 2-5 years past ! (and not just because its on fox )
further, smead touts his smaller int'nl fund offsetting some underperformance with no attribution at all .
its sad, because smead used to produce thoughtful insights on both sectors and specific names, but his disconnects lose a lot of credibility.
https://smeadcap.com/tv-appearances/fox-business-bill-smead-on-tarriff-threat-disruption/

I wouldn’t disagree at all. I have been overweight CD’s for years. I am in preservation mode and not a yield chaser.

@Crash- Since you mention a 4% divvy and I believe that you like income, you might be interested in knowing that I just picked up a couple of non-callable 3.7% FDIC CDs at Schwab, one for 1 year and 1 for two years.
One was Wells Fargo and the other was Goldman Sachs. Seems like at least a couple of the big boys are not thinking that the Fed will be lowering rates significantly for a couple of years. I thought that was interesting.

We are unwinding our gold position slowly after a meaningful gain over last several years. Gold is near $4,800 per ounce. Gold does not produce earning and dividend, but it serves as a trading instrument in this environment.

If it is about national security, this administration is not negotiating with Greenland and Demark properly. Respect must come first in real negotiation, not threats. Leasing part of Greenland is possible just as many Pacific islands have done that with US since WWII.
Some suggested that this administration is panicking on rare earth metals. Greenland is impractical to mine in light of the climate. Refining and producing high purity grade rare earth metals will take many years to developed. US gave away the technology to China many years ago. And now US is stuck with no raw materials and lack of infrastructure to refine these critical materials.

[snip]
@Observant1 - I went through a similar exercise a year or so ago looking for global stock funds w/o much Mag7. Not easy to find.
FPACX might work. Many people seem fond of it. And it holds only three of the Mag7 - Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon. Those constitute "only" about 20% of the total equity in the fund (10% / 50%). Excellent returns and a moderate max drawdown (-21%). But its ER is over 1% and it was holding (as of Sept) 40% in cash.
FEBIX might also work. It doesn't seem to hold any Mag7. Very good returns and a "low" max drawdown of 16%. It is way underweight in tech and way overweight in consumer defensive. And it holds 9% in gold - I'm not a fan of that but many others are. Biggest question mark may be recent manager/analyst turnover.
I just took a very quick look at a few of the funds to see if anything jumped out at me. Nothing did.

Thanks for the info.
The account where this fund will be held is at Fidelity.
The following four funds were under consideration after the initial screening process.
M* places these funds in the "Global Moderate Allocation" category
except for SGENX which it classifies as "Global Moderately Aggressive Allocation."
SGENX - NTF, load-waived, 1.10% er
SGENX gained 31.57% in 2025 vs. "only" 17.66% for FPACX.
SGENX allocated 11.0% of its portfolio towards gold bullion as of 09-30-25.
Gold gained ~67% in 2025 which was its best performance since 1979.
On Dec. 11, 2025, First Eagle announced it would acquire Diamond Hill by the third quarter of 2026.
PE firm Genstar Capital acquired First Eagle from Blackstone, Corsair, and their co-investors in August 2025.
FPACX - $49.95 TF, 1.06% er
Top-decile category returns for the trailing 3Y, 5Y, 10Y, and 15Y periods.
Three long-tenured portfolio managers have invested over $1M each in the fund.
IFAFX - NTF, 0.63% er
Top-decile category returns for the trailing 5Y, 10Y, and 15Y periods.
There are ten portfolio managers total with four managers that have more than 10 years of tenure.
Eight managers have invested over $1M each in the fund.
VGWLX - $100.00 TF, 0.43% er
Top-quintile category returns for the trailing 5Y period (11/02/17 inception date).
Sub-advised by Wellington Management.
One portfolio manager has invested over $1M in the fund while the other manager has invested over $500K.
I asked Fidelity if the TF could be waived or reduced but was informed that this was not possible.
IFAFX vs. SGENX vs. FPACX
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=26yMudA0dEmABdTOAvcl8F
FPACX vs. AMECX (IFAFX info was inaccurate)
FPACX had higher CAGR, Sharpe, and Sortino ratios with lower volatility and max. drawdown.
https://testfol.io/?s=keoymL8x3O8
My top choices are FPACX and IFAFX.

It's an interesting discussion which various board members have touched on elaborated on over the years. First, we need to agree on / define what the bucket approach espouses. Many conflate this with standard portfolio allocations (% to cash, % to equities, % to bonds or commodities, etc.) As I understand it (and as the opening of the video suggests) the bucket approach is mainly about stashing a large cash stockpile in a bucket to cover anticipated near-term needs. 3-4 years' worth of cash is often used. Typically, there's a second "moderate risk" bucket (perhaps to meet needs 3-6 years out) which you wouldn't need to tap until bucket #1 is exhausted. This approach allows you to carry additional risk in your remaining buckets knowing you won't need that money soon. Additional risk should equal additional reward. I have no quarrel with that approach. Makes sense. The expectation is that during market downdrafts you can keep your hands off the riskier bucket(s) and live comfortably off the near-term / intermediate term buckets. There are no guarantees - never are in investing.
I've never subscribed to that approach. The difference may be in having a defined benefit plan that pretty much covers essentials. But some of my "one-bucket" thinking relates to carrying a more conservative portfolio than I suspect most here do. Also, I try to pull larger sums for major expenses when times are good. Let it ride and rebalance when markets swoon. Again, there are no guarantees. Other than the current year's budgeted needs I don't hold a cash stash. That said, a healthy allocation to fixed income is part of the one bucket approach. Yes, doing it this way does ding you if you need to draw a large sum out during a nasty market slump. The counter to that is that during normal times you're not committing an inordinate amount of your portfolio to low yielding cash.
I suspect there's not as much difference as sometimes attributed to the two different approaches. I'd never argue my one-bucket method works better than the multi-bucket brigade does, although that seems to be the (attached video) speaker's argument. I'll add that while it sounds good in theory it would take nerves of steel to be stoically drawing down your near-term / intermediate-term bucket(s) over a 3-5 year span as your long-term bucket declined 50% in value!
Time to run the blower if I can figure out where the driveway is.

How about the European Union collectively flip this doofus a giant bird. They should also tariff the snot on the largest American firms that have knelt at the altar of gobshit (a play on Anna's godship) and revoke any agreements that let those companies set up tax evasion strategies in their countries. Nothing gets his attention like money.

How many countries officially, if only on paper--- moved their HQ to Ireland to get in on that 12.5% corporate tax? Too many. And I can't imagine everything connected to that fact can be undone. It was, at the beginning of that reduced tax offering many years ago, a chickenshit thing to do, in my estimation, and I'm an Irishman. Undercutting the rest of Europe. Offering sweetheart deals. Companies like Johnson Controls and other big corporations ought to be paying more, not less.
Anyhow, I have just read here that an Agreement b/w Orange and van der Leyen has been frozen over the talk about owning Greenland, and the escalating aggressiveness, his insistence on having it.
Is this going to be more TACO, in the end? When will the military tell him, at last, to go fuck himself? And why are we even talking about this?
1) Epstein Epstein Epstein.
2) he's tearing NATO apart in such a way that he can't be legally accused of working for the enemy, namely, his uncle Vlad. Someday, we'll find out just what was the kompromat that Vlad's got on the Orange Filth.
.....Anyhow, it looks like some Repugnants on The Hill actually will oppose him on this thing.

@Derf
PRFCX is not precisely a clone of the equity sleeve in PRWCX. There's surely enough similarity to think of them in the same ballpark. (But I'm looking at the portfolios dated 30 Nov, '25 at Morningstar.) You're 5 years ahead of me, not that it matters at this stage.
I've been in PRWCX since 2014 and can't imagine giving it up. 2025 was its worst performance year, ever: 55th percentile among peers. I note a curious item listed in the PRCFX portfolio: an aggregate of a pile of different stuff, and as of 30 Nov, its size jumped by 2,225.99%. There must be a record somewhere of just which stocks are in that big un-labeled bag, eh? I suppose it's an indication that the size of the AUM has grown substantially.
I was attracted to PRCFX by its lead Portf. Mngr. and its YIELD. A rather hefty yield compared to most other balanced funds. I'm able to add new money to my portfolio just in dribs and drabs these days; a heftier yield which pays monthly makes growing my total easier, because it all gets reinvested, apart from the slug I remove each January. PRCFX is 13.43% of my total. I'm letting it ride. In a couple of years, I'll run into RMDs. The size of my taxable account will be growing quicker, then. I plan to move the lion's share of the RMDs just over there on the other side of the wall.

@crash, i made a mistake on my statement above (correction made). Capital preservation is #1 objective. BTW, i invest with D. Sherman funds as they have done well and minimize the risk. At Fidelity, they charge $49.95 for initial purchase. Additional purchases can be done for $5. Schwab has similar fee schedule. I use this approach to build a large position over.a year or so. Institutional shares of OEFs have lower expense ratio that pay for the transaction fee itself. I hold RSIIX for over 5 years.
Single country ETFs are inherently volatile due to the lack of sector and company diversification. If the top 10 holdings are over 50%, the fund is very concentrated. Panama is in frontier market i believe. The other thing to watch out for is the small daily trading volume (getting narrow spread between bid and ask prices). I prefer broadly diversified OEFs and ETFs (typical daily trading volume at 100K to several millions shares).
@Derf, we don’t own any PRCFX since we have PRWCX. For last several years, we have been reducing PRWCX as part of our risk reduction. US and foreign bonds are more attractive at this point.
Quite honestly i am not qualified to advise you on the amount of risk you should assume. Think a financial advisor may serve you better.

What could possibly go wrong between now and then?

mmm...What could possibly go wrong under Biden?
The highest inflation and cost of living in four decades.
The worst one-year bond losses in forty years.
The largest number of criminals entering the country.
The biggest expansion of useless DEI jobs.
That wasn’t theoretical. That was real.

Uranium has been rising for over two years with all the hype about nuclear power.
A Sprott ETF is certainly one idea but less risky might be a general energy and natural resources fund like GRHAX which has chunks of Uranium silver Gold and Energy
As I have mentioned before SII Sprott Common Stock is also up dramatically but does not depend on one of these markets as they have ETFs in all of them
NLR a "nuclear" ETF has Uranium but also power producers and even some utilities
Probably less of a volatile ride until Trump pulls the plug

Having two co-managers working with Romick for over 10 years gives confidence for the future investment. In addition, Landecker and Selmo run the FPA Equity fund FPAG, a global ETF without the fixed income component. We pair FPAG with FPA flexible income fund.

Read a book titled “American Kompromat” by Craig Unger which details Trump’s long history with the KGB. He was turned in 1987 after he went bust (again), but he had been doing business with the Russians long before that. This book details how the KGB first spotted Trump as a potential asset, how it cultivated him, arranged his first trip to Moscow (1987 with pictures to prove it) and pumped him full of KGB talking points. Well worth the read!
Much of what Trump has been doing is exactly what Putin would like to see.

Yes, I'/ve been saying that. Even back 10 or 11 years ago, during the 2015-16 campaign, Orange Don, Jr. volunteered to tell an interviewer they had no problem getting money for this or that--- from Russia.
*******************************
In another direction:
Trump's Venezuela oil money is being held in bank accounts controlled by the U.S. government, with the largest account located in Qatar, according to multiple reports. The funds come from the sale of Venezuelan oil following the U.S. seizure of control over Venezuela’s oil assets after the capture of President Nicolás Maduro in January 2026.
Qatar’s role is described as a neutral and secure location to hold the proceeds—initially $500 million from the first sale—helping to prevent seizure by creditors or legal claims from foreign companies with past grievances. The Trump administration argues this setup ensures the money can be used to benefit Venezuela directly, funding government operations, food, medicine, and small businesses through auctions managed by Qatari banks and overseen by the Central Bank of Venezuela under U.S. conditions.
However, transparency concerns have emerged. Critics, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, argue that placing the funds offshore in Qatar lacks legal precedent and resembles a “slush fund” with insufficient oversight. They question the lack of congressional input and warn of potential misuse by Venezuelan interim leaders like Delcy Rodríguez to consolidate power.
While the administration claims the move stabilizes Venezuela and bypasses years of financial isolation, the decision has sparked debate over accountability, presidential authority, and the precedent of holding seized foreign assets in offshore accounts.
(Nothing to see here, move along.............)