@Sven,
I’ll try to locate my earlier source / reference on the derivative strategy sometimes used by PRWCX. It may take a day or so to dig that up. But it was primarily a strategy to generate income using stocks in some type of mutually beneficial contract with another party. The buyer of the option received a chance for upside potential should the stock increase in value. In return, PRWCX sacrificed some (or all?) of the stock’s upside potential in return for downside protection plus income. It was first mentioned 5-7 years ago by Giroux in a fund report. I haven’t read his reports recently. But just glanced at one tonight. While I can’t answer your question directly at the moment, how’s this excerpt (from Giroux) for honesty? It’s from the December 31, 2018 Annual Report for PRWCX. (It sounds like he’s being taken to “the woodshed” - and yet has nothing IMHO to apologize for.)
“We were disappointed in our investments in industrials, such as Middleby, a manufacturer of commercial food service equipment and high-end residential kitchen equipment. We bought it because the valuation and stock price had come down, management had a very good long-term track record on M&A, and, given higher labor costs at restaurants in a tight labor market, we felt that Middleby’s sales would benefit from a movement to substitute equipment for labor. From a process perspective, we made multiple errors that we do not intend to make again. First, we bought the stock without having met management. Assessing the quality of a management team is a very important part of our investment process. Second, earnings quality had deteriorated, with free cash flow conversion to net income dropping below 100%. Third, while capital allocation had been positive over the long run, recent acquisitions in the high-end residential kitchen equipment space had performed poorly.
“With GE, we started buying the stock right after the announcement that Larry Culp would become CEO. We bought too much too quickly given the risk profile of the company, and this hurt returns in 2018. We believe in GE and its new CEO and consider their aviation and health care businesses to be fundamentally solid. However, the initial position size should have been smaller, and we should have built the position more slowly. Again, we hope to avoid these mistakes in the future.”
https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/m_document.asp?clientid=trowepll&fundid=77954M105&docid=2205655&doctype=ann&docdate=20181231&back=1

"During the year ended December 31, 2018, the volume of the fund’s activity in options, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 8% and 15% of net assets."
Annual Report, Dec 31,2018.
IMHO it's not the use of derivatives (including options) per say that can be a concern, but rather how they are used. As you noted, PIMCO uses them extensively - for boosting returns, for creating virtual leverage, etc. In contrast, FPINX makes extensive use of derivatives for defensive purposes, e.g. to reduce interest rate risk. I don't know what use PRWCX makes of derivatives.

According to morningstar, the expense ratio of CGMFX is 2.45% and assets are down to $494 million which means that he has been selling a lot. I briefly owned CGMFX in the past but bailed as the fact that he trades a lot was a huge negative. I still own FAIRX as the asset bleeding at FAIRX seems to have stopped. I also owned Third Avenue credit and got stuck holding the bag as everyone else left. I guess Heebner selling equities to meet redemptions is NOT as bad as Third Avenue credit fund having to sell illiquid junk bonds when the redemption calls came. However, when you have a run at at MF, then hedge funds might start shorting those holdings and cause the issues to get worse (although Heebner is in and out all the time so not sure people can short his holdings). Heebner was short treasuries for a while and of course yields on treasuries are still low.

Totally inspired by similar post on SFGIX...
I really know how to pick them.
HSGFX
FAIRX
now CGMFX
I've gotten back my principal some time back so have been letting this ride. However I have watched my current cost basis of $6000 go to as much as $7700 and now is at $5200 odd. YTD down over 15% YTD.
Now I know Heebner invests on a whim but can't believe he would be so out of step with things. Then I did something I normally don't do with this fund. I looked at the portfolio.
>45% in Emerging Markets as per M*. "WTF" does not begin to explain it.
How many idiots besides me still hold this fund? Please feel free to lie.

Hi folks... What should your distributions in EM be 5 to 10%?.. US MARKET may seem to be better bets long term but prob best to have both... Think we have roughly 5 or 6%in EM

@Edmond, my opinion is EM is one of the categories where returns will be better with a managed fund. Just my opinion, but also everything I've read agrees with that thought. Actual results will only be known 20 years from now.
My biggest argument when considering my own portfolio right now (being 65) is do I even need an EM fund. I hold SFGIX because I believe it is the least volatile approach to EM investing. But frankly, I don't believe SFGIX will outperform FMIJX (my 1 international fund) in most any time frame over 3 years.

I was able to arrange things as I'd planned: though not a resident of Hawaii, I was able to open a 3-way account (joint) with the young man and his mother, at a local CU, in person. I will use it to feed the mutual fund from time to time. And if the worst should happen to me, there is nothing to worry about, legally. The account will simply carry on, in their names. The fund we're starting with will be BIAWX. If we are fortunate enough to NEED to branch-out, we will choose from the many suggested allocation funds offered here. We have just sent the mutual fund's application forms, too. If there are any glitches, surely they will let us know. I have urged the young man to begin an IRA. At his age, a Roth is the way to go. But at 18, it's a difficult thing to get him to FOCUS and think it through. I'm just an "honorary" uncle, anyhow. His mother is very smart, a good mother. Except re: finance. Like the vast majority, it seems. So... I live 5,000 miles away, at least for the present.

When something looks too good to be true (here, that's similar long term performance for 100% stocks or 60/40 mix, and even better for 70/30), one has to ask what's going on. Either something new has been uncovered or something has been hidden (inadvertently or not).
For the past 40 years, yields have been declining. So bonds have benefited from both appreciation (as yields drop, prices increase) and higher yields than now. At "best", yields have flattened out (as opposed to beginning a multi-year ascent), so one will have neither the appreciation nor the better yields of years past.
That's one factor hidden in plain sight.
Another factor, one that was better hidden, is the mix of large/mid/small cap companies that the market started with in 2000. If we take the current mix (using VTSMX as a proxy), that's 77/17/6. With no rebalancing, it returned 6.61% annually, for a final value of $34,462. With annual rebalancing (as done in the article with the hybrid portfolios), the pure equity portfolio returned 6.45% annually, for a final value of $33,465.
Both are significantly better than the $31K or less returned by the portfolios in the article.
But here I'm just as guilty of slight of hand as the author. I split the 100% equity fund into large/mid/small cap, but didn't do the same thing for, say, the 70/30 portfolio.
If one does that (54/12/4 and 30% bond), the 70/30 fund ends up with $32,785 (rebalanced). Still clearly inferior to the pure equity portfolio, but significantly closer. Without rebalancing, the 54/12/3/30 hybrid fund does not fare as well, ending with just $31,384.
The point is that there can be more going on than the numbers convey, even when the numbers are legitimate. Bonds served several purposes in the past (though less than the article suggests); it is more questionable whether they continue to serve them now. Though one cannot deny their psychological, "sleep at night" benefit.

FYI: The trade battle between the U.S. and China hasn’t just hurt American farmers and Chinese exporters; it has also hit U.S. investors who pumped $2.8 billion into China funds in the first four months of 2019 on top of the $6.4 billion they added last year. So far this month alone, Chinese stocks are down 13%, according to MSCI.
Many U.S. investors seem to have raised their exposure to China—despite the protracted trade dispute—largely in hopes of capturing higher future returns from the country’s brisk economic growth.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/think-before-you-fish-for-bargains-in-chinese-stocks-11558710015?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-richest-10-of-households-now-represent-70-of-all-us-wealth-2019-05-24?siteid=rss&rss=1
Meanwhile, the share of top 1% wealthiest increased to nearly 32% in 2018 from 23% in 1989.
I wonder how this can continue.

The dividing line is between those who could come up with $400, including using a CC and paying it off completely, and those who have to beg, borrow, or steal to cover an emergency.
I agree with @sfnative, that figures like these help remind us that so many people live paycheck to paycheck.
There will always be those who try to slough off such statistics. Cato tries to do this by pointing out that one of the questions asked people whether they would (not were able to) pay the $400 bill "out of savings (or checking) if they wanted to."
https://www.cato.org/blog/it-true-40-americans-cant-handle-400-emergency-expense-0
But Cato makes two errors. The minor one is that it cites last year's survey results, not the current results, dated May 2019.
The more serious error is that, unlike the Fed, it ignores the fact that "Even without an unexpected expense, 17 percent of adults expected to forgo payment on some of their bill in the month of the survey." Add to that the fact that "Another 12 percent of adults would be unable to pay their current month's bills if they also had an unexpected $400 expense that they had to pay. Altogether, 3 in 10 adults are either unable to pay their bills or are one modest financial setback away from hardship."
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf (p. 21, pdf p. 29)
Think about that. Not that people wouldn't pay their bills, but that they couldn't. Even with borrowing.
There's a lot of interesting data in the Fed's report people's economic well being that goes well beyond whether people can handle an unexpected $400 expense.

(The Closing Bell will be updated sometime after 4:00 PM CDST to include the latest updates from IBD and Bloomberg Evening Briefing.)
FYI: U.S. stocks pared their early gains but remained slightly higher Friday, a day after investors pulled money out of riskier companies such as technology firms in favor of safe-haven assets such as U.S. government bonds.
Energy firms resumed their slide as the price of U.S.-traded oil fell for a fourth consecutive session. Despite those declines, the broader market bounced back slightly from their drop on Thursday, illustrating that even as investors have grown more wary about the effects of the U.S.-China trade standoff on the U.S. and other economies, they remain cautiously optimistic about the future of corporate profits.
On Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average added 95 points, or 0.37%, after earlier rising as much as 180 points. The S&P 500 gained 0.14% and the Nasdaq Composite rose 0.11%.
ll three indexes are on pace for weekly declines—as well as steep monthly losses—amid escalating bluster between the U.S. and China, higher tariffs and uncertain economic damage. On Thursday, the Dow industrials lost nearly 300 points, the same day the Federal Reserve Bank of New York warned that tariffs imposed on Chinese imports were costing the average household $813 each a year. The blue-chip index is on pace to notch its fifth consecutive weekly loss, which would mark its longest such losing stretch since 2011.
Worries about the economic impact hit oil prices hard Thursday, with U.S.-traded crude prices dropping 5.7% for their biggest one-day fall since Christmas eve 2018. U.S.-traded crude fell an additional 0.2% on Friday.
Government bond prices slipped and yields rose slightly Friday, rowing back on the trend of investors’ growing preference for safety that has pushed yields generally lower all year. U.S. 10-year Treasury yields were back up to 2.316% from 2.296% on Thursday, which was their lowest level since October 2017.
n Europe, the British pound rose after a week of declines as U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May announced Friday she would resign in two weeks to allow a new leader to try to break log-jammed efforts to agree to a way to leave the European Union.
The Stoxx Europe 600 rose 0.5%, with Germany’s DAX up 0.4%, partially recovering from a near 2% drop Thursday when it was weighed down in part by Deutsche Bank, which slipped 2.4% to close at an all-time low.
Hong Kong’s Hang Seng was up 0.3% and China’s Shanghai A-shares were flat, while the Nikkei 225 slipped 0.2%.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-24/your-evening-briefing
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-rise-on-signs-trump-administration-could-soften-huawei-stance-2019-05-24/print
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-rise-after-selloff-11558685546
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/asia-stocks-to-drop-amid-escalating-trade-tension-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-leads-stock-market-caps-volatile-week-with-gains/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/stock-market-slight-rebound-after-trade-fears-roil-markets.html
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-st-clings-to-slight-gains-after-trump-sparks-u-s-china-trade-hopes-idUSKCN1SU1CL
U.K:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/uk-stocks-shrug-off-mays-exit-but-brexit-risk-lurks-idUKKCN1SU0NI
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/european-shares-recover-after-trump-signal-on-trade-war-idUSKCN1SU0M3
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-mixed-amid-lingering-trade-war-worries-2019-05-23/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/us-bonds-in-focus-on-wall-street-amid-ongoing-trade-war-worries.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/forex-market-us-china-trade-war-us-treasury-yields-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/oil-market-middle-east-tensions-opec-supply-cuts-in-focus.html
Gold
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/gold-market-dollar-moves-us-china-trade-war-in-focus.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
https://markets.wsj.com/us
Major ETFs % Change:
https://www.barchart.com/etfs-funds/etf-monitor
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

For the last 5-7 years I've had some serious doubt about whether they even had a webmaster or IT department. Can anyone confirm? Their recent discussion forums renovations are a disaster.

FYI: Our guest in this special bonus episode of The Long View podcast is Tim Buckley, chairman and CEO of the Vanguard Group, which manages over $5 trillion in assets globally. Tim took the helm at Vanguard in January 2018, succeeding Bill McNabb. Tim is a longtime Vanguard veteran, having joined the firm in 1991. Before assuming his current role, he served as Vanguard’s chief investment officer, head of its retail investor group, as well as its chief information officer.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/930626/vanguards-buckley-theres-no-one-even-close-to-us.html

FYI: Many U.S. households find themselves in a fragile position financially, even in an economy with an unemployment rate near a 50-year low, according to a Federal Reserve survey.
The Fed’s 2018 report on the economic well-being of households, published Thursday, indicated “most measures” of well-being and financial resilience “were similar to, or slightly better than, those in 2017.” The slight improvement coincided with a decline in the average unemployment rate to 3.9% last year, from 4.3% in 2017.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/almost-40--of-americans-would-struggle-to-cover-a--400-emergency-45065.html?print

FYI: Portfolio manager responsibilities for six closed-end funds for which Symphony Asset Management serves as subadvisor have been updated. There will be no impact on the investment approach, investment strategies or any of the funds’ investment objectives or policies.
Information on the portfolio management transition is outlined in the two tables below.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190523005362/en

Old Skeet's market barometer as of market close 5/23, based upon it's metrics, reflects that the S&P 500 Index is undervalued with a reading of 156. With this, I did a little buying yesterday in one of my global equity monthly distribution funds (EADIX) which has a yield of about 3.4%. As I write, it is off it's 52 week high by about eight percent.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4265929-corn-became-far-cheap
Corn become far cheap
Summary
Corn followed the beans on trade news.
Energy prices have been supportive of corn.
Ethanol moved higher.
The uncertainty of the 2019 crop year.
CORN is an alternative to the futures market.
Looking for more? I update all of my investing ideas and strategies to members of Hecht Commodity Report. Get started today »
Anyone dipping into corn?

https://etfdailynews.com/2019/05/22/after-its-recent-downturn-is-the-stock-market-oversold/
After its recent downturn, is the stock market oversold?
Share This Article
May 22, 2019 12:46pm NYSE:SPY
Upswing Soar
From Keris Lahiff: Stock markets are slowly healing from the worst of the month’s trade war sell-off.

@Derf: "Replay of 5/13 ?" What ! Please explain !
Regards,
Ted