Fund flows bother me a lot. They wreck havoc on a lot of funds. Look what happened to MFLDX as “investors” fled. And I’m aware PRPFX has suffered due to the fund’s huge investor exodus after gold cooled. Heck, management discussed the rapid decline in asset base in their fund reports about 3 years back and considered altering the fee structure (though I don’t recall in what manner) as a consequence.
Umm ... I’m a little sensitive on this point being a docile, long term, buy and hold type. And would prefer the “hot money” stay away from the funds I own. PRPFX is not a gold fund. Folks who want a gold fund should buy one.
Here’s how PRPFX invests:
Gold 20%
Silver 5%
Swiss franc assets 10%
Real estate / natural resource stocks 15%
Aggressive growth stocks 15%
Dollar assets 35%*
Total 100%
* Includes U.S. Treasury Bonds
Where I have a (I hope friendly) disagreement with @bee is in posting the fella with the seedy suit and bad hairpiece who’s using scare tactics to promote buying of gold and than somehow trying to link what he’s peddling to the Permanent Portfolio Fund. I see no connection whatsoever between his snake-oil pitch for gold and how PRPFX invests.
I’ve had a mild (long running) disagreement with @LLJB who believes one should buy the assets, originally promoted by author Harry Brown, directly rather than paying Michael Cuggino a higher fee to do that for you. I agree - except that I’m not aware of a single poster ever who claimed to be doing that. I’m lazy. The thought of having to buy, transport, store and insure physical bullion, buy and sell stock ETFs, play in the international currency arena and do the regular record keeping (including taxes related to international currency trades) is daunting. Saying the fees are high in no way addresses the issue of diversifying across asset classes, which is what the fund’s about.
Than there’s David Snowball’s very well documented commentary (roughly a decade ago) analyzing Cuggino’s returns across asset classes and finding the performance lacking. I can’t argue with that. I doubt Cuggino excels as a stock picker. If that’s what you want, invest in a proven equity growth fund. And his dismal results for his short term Treasury fund are easily retreivable. Again, if you want a top income manager, invest with one.
All this said, PRPFX does invest across multiple asset categories. If you like those categories as a diversification tool and don’t want to go through the trouble of investing individually in each asset class, than it’s a decent fund.

One of the things that might have caused some issues was I think they had an enormous inflow of assets, probably during the credit crisis, and then most of those assets left afterwards.
I also know the fund has its own somewhat more sophisticated take on what Harry Browne laid out as his Permanent Portfolio and unfortunately it hasn't helped them. If you compare the performance of Browne's 25% each equities, long term treasuries, gold and cash to PRPFX, Browne has beaten the fund by 100 basis points annually since inception even though cash has effectively been earning nothing for almost 10 years and Browne managed that excess return with a lot less volatility, a much lower max drawdown, a better worst calendar year and, of course, far better risk adjusted returns.
If I could get people to give me $20MM every year for a management fee I'm sure I could come up with a worse version of Ray Dalio's All Season's Portfolio and that's just what they make on the paltry $2.5BN they still have in the fund. Five years ago they had $17BN but they were charging less so they probably only got $119MM that year. I really chose the wrong career!

@Catch22

PRPFX apparently has been "bothered" by more than gold pricing. Too many internal holdings to look closer, as I don't get paid very much for this type of work.
@Catch22, The fund holds a significant amount in short term paper and treasury bonds. Both have yielded near nothing for many years. If you throw a lot of 2% yielding paper into a portfolio the net result will be lower than it might be with 100% in some riskier asset. No?
Gold is in my opinion very risky. In my own lifetime it’s varried in price between $35 and $1600. It’s currently around $1300. Doesn’t sound like something I’d throw 100% of my assets into - even if I believed it was going to go higher. Just too d*** risky.

Oops. Sorry @bee. I thought this was from Ted and initially blasted it. (He who giveth shall receiveth.)
Torpedo recalled.
Apologies @Ted also. I need to look before I leap.
@bee raises an interesting question re PRPFX. And I listened to all 15 minutes of the video expecting the gent would eventually get around to that fund. But I see no reference to PRPFX or its multi-asset investment approach in the linked video. Perhaps a different video was intended?
What this is is a lopsided pitch for gold using scare tactics. I won’t dispute that the gentleman injects some real financial issues into his pitch (excess liquidity, high valuations, high debt, etc.). If folks have takes on those issues I’d be most interested in hearing their thoughts. (And a lot of his pitch is taken from John Hussman’s playbook.) But the presentation seems very lopsided and designed mainly to spook people into owning gold.
Everybody has their own take on PRPFX. Depends on your temperament, philosophy, life experiences and a whole lot of other factors. Those who read my musings must note I’m pretty risk averse. So I look for every possible way to diversify. Having a small chunk of this fund (10-15% of total) is just one aspect of that diversification.
I’ve never viewed PRPFX as something you buy or sell depending on your outlook for the economy or the stock market. Actually, I’d tend to view it more as an all weather fund, suitable at anytime. A good fund for those who agree with the “TED” series speaker’s doomsday prophecy would be HSGFX. A better choice IMHO than loading up on gold.
Regards

It would be interesting to know his active share because for the last 10 years he's more or less hugged the S&P 500 the whole way. My guess is he has a reasonably high active share but his returns during the credit crisis were very similar and his upside since then has been the same. I guess we have to give him a decent amount of credit for only trailing the S&P by 24 basis points annually for those 10 years, and the big party he throws has to be worth something (if you're into that) but I think most of his outperformance was during the '90s. Since then I'm not sure he's been anything spectacular amid his ever growing stable of funds that have made him a billionaire.

estimates he has generated $23.5 billion in investment profits since then.
He expects to double that number in the next five or six years.

That depends on on a continuing bull market for the next 5-6 years. I don't think so.

( I need to learn how to cut and paste articles on my I Pad).
Simple!
1) Press down against screen at the beginning or end of the passage to be extracted. Works best with a soft-tipped stylus.
2) A light colored (probably blue) dot appears on your screen at the point you are pressing against and a menu above will appear listing several options. Tap “select.” You’ll see a marker (probably blue) appear.
3) Slide the marker left or right and words will begin to appear within a highlighted zone as you make it longer or shorter.
4) Lift stylus from screen.
5) Watch for the word “copy” or “cut” to appear nearby (usually above) after you lift the stylus. Tap on “copy” or “cut”. That saves the highlighted words to the device’s memory.
6) Now, press your stylus against the screen again at the point where you want to paste the saved words. This can be within the document you are working on or an entirely different document.
7) Lift stylus from screen and watch for the word “paste” to appear. Tap on “paste.” The saved words should appear right where you want them.
Longer passages can be cut or copied by sliding your stylus upwards or downward against the screen.

I've own the Schwab robo for about the same time as this guy. I can't disagree with him. I also believe the complexity of the robo does not, or has not as of yet added total return value. The biggest concern I've had, and he stated, is having gold in the portfolio. I personally think gold is a bad investment over time. Certainly it has been over the time of his comparison.
The other thing I noticed, especially early on when I bought, was the robo seemed to have high international and EM exposure when you summed up equity, bonds and currency. Up until the 2017 that was not the place to be, so at least my robo suffered early on. Currency (like gold) in my mind is another complexity that adds little to no value.
I think I would recommend the robo to those that want absolutely no interaction with their portfolio, though as the author also notes, this can be done with a simple 1-fund retirement fund. I've been 50:50 in the robo and a self-managed portfolio. My plan is not to give up on the robo altogether, but to reduce it's weight in my over-all. Not exactly sure what I want that ratio to be yet.

FYI: Ron Baron started his mutual-fund firm in the 1990s and estimates he has generated $23.5 billion in investment profits since then.
He expects to double that number in the next five or six years. That’s not a market call, because the 74-year-old investor doesn’t make them. He expects to do what he has always done, which has involved beating the market long term at a point when most investors have given up on active management.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cetusnews.com/business/Ron-Baron-Explains-His-Investing-Strategy--Company-Growth.HJXZ2rwx4G.html

FYI: (Thank God, the Linkster has Dan Ivascyn as his bond fund manager!)
While U.S. stocks are now in an “accelerating phase,” billionaire investor Jeffrey Gundlach is predicting that the S&P 500 will post a negative rate of return in 2018.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-doubleline/doublelines-gundlach-predicts-sp-will-post-negative-return-in-2018-idUSKBN1EY2R2
Gundlach Sees Commodities Outperforming In Late-Cycle Boom:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/gundlach-says-commodities-set-to-outperform-in-late-cycle-boom

I still get the paper version also.
Here is a link I found where you can get the various quarterly tables:
http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3024-fundsanalysis.html?mod=topnav_2_3053

@Junkster-noticed that LSFAX is available ntf, load-waived for $100 minimum, with expense ratio 25 basis points higher than LSFYX.

I agree with @Junkster about that solid return number.
Here is a broad based search (below bold, skip the first top box dated July, 2017) related to the recent action of Bank of Japan and their bonds. Pick your story for info.
Are all the big central bankers really trying to back down from QE? Kinda reminds me of an over supply of vehicles and all the major companies are trying to unload and at least break even for their efforts.
Fun times still ahead, eh?
While about 75% equity here, our house still holds the remainder in investment grade bonds. Our portfolio may have entered the "between a rock and a hard place time frame".
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ynFVWo6aMMTEjwS28r-ADw&q=bank+of+japan+reducing+bond+buying&oq=Bank+of+Japan+reducing+bon&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i22i29i30k1l9.9520.46395.0.50606.37.25.8.4.4.0.296.2639.12j12j1.25.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.35.2679...0j0i131k1j0i131i46k1j46i131k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.0.jbBYQYzEtoE
Have a restful remainder of your evening.
Catch

This quarter's WSJ Investing in Funds & ETFS demonstrates the paper's reduced coverage. "Category Kings in 16 Realms" no longer lists the 10 top performing funds in their categories, only the top 5. Maybe I'm the only traditional subscriber left and the only one who cares. I used to enjoy perusing the top 10 lists, but top 5 lists are meh. Come to think of it, my subscription this year is costing me $20 more than last year. I'm not getting much more than fire starter these days, a role that Barron's used to play in my household.

FYI: By virtually any measure, U.S. stocks are expensive. Under one especially harsh lens, the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio popularized by Robert Shiller, equities relative to 10 years of profits are more stretched than any time in a century, save the dot-com era.
But there’s still a methodology that bulls can take comfort in -- price not just to earnings, but to earnings growth. Favored by legendary investor Peter Lynch and known as the PEG ratio, the technique takes the standard valuation snapshot and adds time -- time for a stock to grow into its price.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/forget-cape-ratio--peter-lynch-tool-has-s-p-500-getting-cheaper-36555.html?print

And the advertising for brokerages is getting up to pre-GFC levels, too. You know, the "trade anywhere, anytime!" commercials telling you that you can "be in control of things" ... we all know how that ended up the last time.
I'm about 95% in equities across my accounts and am not selling anything even if a pullback comes ---- much as I despise my still-idling largeish cash position, I am reassured by its presence for use opportunisitically when things do turn south and these alleged 'in control" folks are dumping their shares "from anywhere, anytime!|

Hi psuche98,
I have PARMX -- it's more conservative. It's one you can count on. Also, FLPSX -- you should get a kick from overseas. Then, my favorite, UMBMX -- it's a runner at times. Just what I have, bro.
God bless
the Pudd
p.s. At Fidelity, $2500 in IRA.

PRDMX is NTF at Fidelity. Not presently open at Fidelity. May be open directly at TRP.
A few other suggested by Fidelity:

https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/779585108?type=sq-NavBar

FYI: With U.S. stocks seeming to hit records by the day, perhaps its no surprise that investors are piling into risk assets in a nearly unprecedented way.
In the latest measure of optimism, TD Ameritrade’s Investor Movement Index rose to 8.59 in December, its second straight monthly record. The index measures the behavior of TD Ameritrade clients, aggregating their positions and activity to measure how they are positioned.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/retail-investor-exposure-to-stock-market-is-at-an-all-time-high-td-ameritrade-2018-01-08/print

FYI: S&P 500 sector weightings are important to monitor. Over the years when weightings have gotten extremely lopsided for one or two sectors, it hasn’t ended well. Below is a table showing S&P 500 sector weightings from the mid-1990s through 2012. In the early 1990s before the Dot Com bubble, the US economy was much more evenly weighted between manufacturing sectors and service sectors. Sector weightings were bunched together between 6% and 14% across the board. In 1990, Tech was tied for the smallest sector of the market at 6.3%, while Industrials was the largest at 14.7%. The spread between the largest and smallest sectors back then was just over 8 percentage points.
The Dot Com bubble completely blew up the balanced economy, and looking back you can clearly see how lopsided things had become. Once the Tech bubble burst, it was the Financial sector that began its charge towards dominance. The Financial sector’s sole purpose is to service the economy, so in our view you never want to see the Financial sector make up the largest portion of the economy. That was the case from 2002 to 2007, though, and we all know how that ended.
Unfortunately we’ve begun to see sector weightings get extremely out of whack once again.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/sector-snapshot/bespoke-sp-500-sector-weightings-report-january-2018/