VOO is better yet, and yes, it was the four months preceding Aug 15 that initially gave XRLV the nontrivial leg up.
Same with the last month.
So you get performance very close to VOO (or IVV) with possible added value of outperformance under rising rates. Win-win. All I was saying. No kidding anyone.
Hard to beat VOO. If there were significant downsides to QUAL, XRLV, and CAPE (none shown thus far), they would not be of interest. Yet they seem close to equal to VOO and, often enough, better than. That's why my discussion title was what it was.
But you do you, and stay argumentative.

Fidelity even offers some of these funds with lower mins in taxable accounts, like EVBIX. Though in general, as you wrote, Fidelity offers the lower minimums only in retirement accounts.
Fidelity EVBIX page:
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fees-and-prices/277905220?type=o-NavBar

"I am told by my ML handholder that etn status is not the reason, but its use of derivatives. Or something like that. "
There's that bogeyman, "derivatives". There are many people, myself included, who would say that ETNs are themselves intrinsically derivatives. Their values are derived from something else and there's nothing requiring an issuer to hold that "something else". See, e.g. this old (2010) page:
https://www.invest-faq.com/articles/deriv-exch-trade-note.html
Though others like the SEC don't consider ETNs automatically to be derivatives:
"Funds that are constrained by the limits of the proposed rule may also respond to incentives to gain market exposure with exchange-traded notes (ETNs) instead of derivatives."
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-24-15/s72415-85.pdf
Let's test ME's explanation. Here's a list purporting to include all ETNs. Most ETNs are either leveraged, or inverse, or based on commodities or futures, which would be derivatives under any definition (they don't hold actual wheat, for example).
https://www.firstbridgedata.com/page/list-of-etns-exchangetraded
We can look at ETNs that track the Alerian MLP index. Excluding leveraged ones, there's AMJ and AMU (also AMUB, which is just a second series of AMU). On the ETF side, there's AMLP, which does actually hold the component securities.
http://etfdb.com/etfdb-category/mlps/
Merrill Edge won't trade any of the ETNs, but is happy to sell you AMLP. It doesn't appear to be concerned about the index being tracked, only that the securities are ETNs rather than ETFs.
See if you can provide a counter example - ask Merrill Edge to name a single ETN that they'll sell you. If the handholder will only tell you yes or no for ETNs you explicitly name, walk through the whole list (above) of ETNs. I don't expect a single "yes".

from the article:

Some brokers place your cash into money market funds, often their proprietary, in-house funds. This allows the broker to earn fees from your idle cash. Some brokers “sweep” your cash from the brokerage into a bank, typically a bank they also own (an “affiliated” bank).

This is exactly what Schwab does with their Intelligent Portfolio's (robos). It is how they get away with not charging any "fee" for their robo-portfolio series. I haven't thought much about this up until now. I have been fine with it as MM and CD interest was very low, but as rates go up... I have to give that some thought. My robo has 10% in Schwab-cash contributing little to nothing for the portfolio.
I do purchase CD's and MM 'funds' from Schwab with my self managed cash. I believe the MM rate is about 1.89% and I just bought a 1 year CD (Morgan Stanley is the holder) paying 2.35% .

Some of the funds mentioned in this thread with this CHART , which begins with 2015 to date. 2015 and 2016 included, as the U.S. equity markets were doing a bit of funk during this period. I also included FBALX and FPURX , as both have excellent long term annualized returns in the Moderate Allocation category.

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.

@davidmoran: You are correct, I used the wrong index fund (SPY). So let's look at the index fund I use IVV against XRLV. As far as risk/rating, I not a big believer in the MPT. If your happy owning XRLV is the keys to the kingdom rather than just the old boring haystack, be my guest. In my opinion your are just kidding yourself.
Regards,
Ted
YTD:
XRLV =6.57%
IVV= 8.21%
1yr.
XRLV=17.96%
IV 26.12%
3yr.
XRLV=15.34%
IVV= 15.52%
Expense Ratio's:
XRLV=.25%
SPY= .04%

JABAX would be the one to look at, MW, imo.
otoh, anyone can do what I do, if with less diversity: Go 50-50 or 60-40 (either direction), or whatever suits, divided b/w DSENX and PONAX.

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.

I am told by my ML handholder that etn status is not the reason, but its use of derivatives. Or something like that.
$7 is good; Fido is $5, if I am reading correctly; dunno why I balk, sez the guy who drives 3 miles to save $3 on scotch.
That Elements link is the single funniest piece of financial writing I have read in very many months.
But these are highly comical too, directly or indirectly.
https://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23314-the-worst-etf-in-the-world.html
https://www.elementsetn.com/ElementsETNUI/SPECTRUM-U.S.-ETN.aspx
Up a dime today. $4M in assets, sez M*. Strategy almost CAPE-like, har.

My investments are split about 50-50 between Schwab and Vanguard. Sort of accidental, related to retirement accounts at the two main places where I worked. Both are fine, but if I ever consolidate I'll go with Schwab. I like their web site better overall.

This often is the life of an allocation fund...remember PRWCX is not an all equity fund. It's 68% allocation to equities is on the low side for this fund IMHO. Cash is 4.5% and "other" is over 5%. Anyone have a clue what "other" might be?
Hang in there Crash...This fund YTD has returned 6.26% significantly out distancing its peers.

Here it is compared against the S&P 500 since 1986:

Hope that helps...

@Ted,
You can do way better than SPY (cash drag, as uit). Let us compare with the very best, VOO.
Since the day after it launched, 4/7/15, 3-1/3y ago, $10k in XRLV has risen to $15,020 and change.
VOO, which handily beats SPY, has increased to $14,709 less change.
>$300, XRLV beats VOO, and forget SPY.
But for 3y, its outperformance is slight. And 2y shows underperformance, 1y the same but less so, and for increments thereof, ditto, ... except for the last month.
So: if not longterm, you won't go wrong with VOO (Ted, you might change your reference point).
But anyone can probably do slightly better than VOO, adding slightly more value, with no more volatility and likely less volatility. As LB notes.
Nothing approaches CAPE, though, alas.
So at ML it looks as though I will need to do something like 50-50 XRLV and QUAL.
Other suggestions (with backup) welcome.

@Ted Correct me if I'm wrong but is not a 14.19% 3-year annualized return higher than a 14.15% one? And with less volatility: performance.morningstar.com/funds/etf/ratings-risk.action?t=XRLV&region=usa&culture=en_US
Better returns with less risk equals alpha.

@MFO Members: Davidmoran is" seeking a little alpha around SP500", so far that hasn't happened with XRLV. Let's look at the three year return for XRLV and SPY. Low volatility rate around the S&P 500, please. These niche mutual funds only prove that if you build it someone will come along and buy it. Just say no to niche funds.
Regards,
Ted
YTD:
XRLV =6.45%
SPY= 7.96%
1yr.
XRLV=17.96%
SPY= 19.80%
3yr.
XRLV=14.19%
SPY= 14.15%
Expense Ratio's:
XRLV=.25%
SPY= .09%

I have found the DSE_X funds to do a very good job, as anyone who reads my posts knows, and have often touted the great etn CAPE in addition or instead. But some don't like to deal in etfs / etns whose processes are not easy to understand, and for others it is unavailable, for example at ML.
So using MFOP and other sites, I am always looking for other seemingly consistent small improvements over VOO to sub for CAPE. (Straight low-vol indexes often do not show any outperformance.) This has led me to examine QUAL and LGLV (SP500 subclasses / subscreens, so to speak) and similar.
My latest discovery, while not CAPE (which is GO and HR), is XRLV, which tracks the SP500 Low-Volatility Rate Response Index, whose purported and so-far-so-good advantages are explained here:
http://www.indexologyblog.com/2018/06/06/maintaining-risk-reduction-while-reducing-interest-rate-risk/
https://investorplace.com/2018/06/4-funds-that-will-help-protect-against-rising-interest-rates/

@Junkster: While I have your attention. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say some time back, that if the S&P 500 hit 3,000 by year end, you would roll a peanut down Walls Street with you nose. Guess what, get ready to roll !
Regards,
Ted :)

Ha ha, no, but I did say I would bow down to you from afar.

@ MFO Members: Here is the difference in yield between Morgan Stanley's Sweeps account and several of their Money Market Funds. Proceeds from sells, dividends, or interest are automatically transferred to Bank Sweeps account. In my case the difference is .50% in the Bank account and 1.84% in MVRXX. The move to the MM fund is not automatic, I must call the broker and direct him to do so.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morganstanley.com/wealth-investmentstrategies/ratemonitor

@Junkster: While I have your attention. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say some time back, that if the S&P 500 hit 3,000 by year end, you would roll a peanut down Walls Street with you nose. Guess what, get ready to roll !
Regards,
Ted :)

There's a new (to me, anyway) fund "presentation," as the IOFIX guys call it, up on the site, dated July. Just about everything you ever wanted to know about it, all there in living color ...
Here's a tidbit I'd forgotten: the holdings are almost entirely floating rate (95% in this report).
The one thing I can't find is the current price to par of the holdings (M*'s 68.31 is at least five months stale, and my default position these days is not to trust any M* data without some sort of corroboration). There's a nice graph of purchase price to par on p. 16 of the IOFIX presentation, the average being 67.50, which imho is still pretty decent considering the AUM runup.
P.S. Good info on the manager call, Junkster.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4146697-perfect-mutual-fund-volatile-times
Thanks Andy. The crew at Garrison Point Capital have always been very detailed in their presentations. As you allude to, a wealth of information. Above is a link that I don’t believe has been previously posted here on their strategy. I thought Charles had a more thorough analysis. But what I like about this one is the analogy with the old geezer and his bankrupt railroad bonds and the discounted legacy non agencies IOFIX specializes in. Yes, I know, comparing apples to oranges but you get the drift.
By the way, here is the analysis by Charles
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2018/02/lightning-in-a-bottle-alphacentric-income-opportunities-fund-iofix-february-2018/