https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923084/000092308419000032/psbstatsticker10119-20194.htm
497 1 psbstatsticker10119-20194.htm
T. Rowe Price Personal Strategy Balanced Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated October 1, 2019
Effective January 1, 2020, the fund’s name will change from the T. Rowe Price Personal Strategy Balanced Fund to the T. Rowe Price Spectrum Moderate Allocation Fund. All references throughout the prospectus to the Personal Strategy Balanced Fund are replaced by reference to the Spectrum Moderate Allocation Fund. The portfolio manager, investment objective, investment program, and benchmark will remain unchanged.
Effective January 1, 2020, the first six paragraphs under the heading “MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUND’S PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND ITS PRINCIPAL RISKS” are replaced with the following:
The Spectrum Funds offer a professionally managed allocation of investments among a broad range of asset classes. To accommodate a wide range of investor preferences and time horizons, these funds offer six different combinations of the growth potential of stocks, the greater income potential of bonds, and the stability of money market securities. Some of the Spectrum Funds also offer the potential to temper volatility through alternative investments or derivatives. Because they invest in a variety of asset classes, including underlying funds, each Spectrum Fund is expected to benefit from diversification.
While there is no guarantee, the concept of diversification helps investors to reduce their overall risk by spreading assets among a variety of investments. Each type of investment tends to follow a cycle of its own and responds differently to changes in the economy and the marketplace. A decline in one investment can be balanced by returns in other investments that are stable or rising. Therefore, a benefit of the Spectrum Funds is the potential for attractive long-term returns with reduced volatility. Consider your investment goals, your time horizon for achieving them, and your tolerance for risk.
This prospectus only describes the specific investment program for this particular Spectrum Fund. The following information summarizes some of the basic differences between the Spectrum Funds. The specific investment program for each Spectrum Fund is described in greater detail in its prospectus.
For investors seeking broad bond diversification and can accept the possibility of moderate share price declines in an effort to achieve relatively high income, Spectrum Income Fund could be an appropriate part of your overall investment strategy.
For investors seeking broad bond and equity diversification for current income as well as potential for some capital appreciation from equities, Spectrum Conservative Allocation Fund could be an appropriate part of your overall investment strategy. The fund could be appropriate for an investor with an intermediate time horizon.
For investors seeking a balanced approach with broad equity and bond diversification that emphasizes stocks for potential capital appreciation and income to temper volatility, Spectrum Moderate Allocation Fund could be an appropriate part of your overall investment strategy. The fund could be appropriate for intermediate- to long-term investment goals.
For investors with a long-term horizon who want broad equity and bond diversification with significant exposure to stocks and can withstand market volatility in an effort to achieve potential long-term growth with income to temper volatility, Spectrum Moderate Growth Allocation Fund could be an appropriate part of your overall investment strategy.
For investors seeking broad stock diversification and can accept the possibility of significant share price declines in an effort to achieve long-term capital appreciation and some current income, Spectrum Growth Fund could be an appropriate part of your overall investment strategy.
For investors seeking broad international stock diversification and can accept the possibility of significant share price declines in an effort to achieve long-term capital appreciation, Spectrum International Fund could be an appropriate part of your overall investment strategy.
The funds are listed above in order of expected volatility, with Spectrum Income Fund offering the most conservative investment program (since it focuses primarily on bonds) and Spectrum International Fund offering the riskiest (since it invests primarily in international stocks). Generally, the potential for higher returns over time is accompanied by the higher risk of a decline in the value of your principal. Each Spectrum Fund’s broad diversification is designed to cushion severe losses in any one investment sector and moderate the funds’ overall price swings. However, the funds’ share prices will fluctuate as the prices of the fund’s underlying assets rise or fall with changing market conditions.
When adjusting the fund’s allocations among the asset classes and underlying funds, T. Rowe Price considers relative values and prospects for U.S. and international stocks, growth- and value-oriented stocks, and small-, mid-, and large-cap stocks, as well as the outlook for economic growth, interest rates, and inflation.
The date of this supplement is October 1, 2019.
F102-042 10/1/19

Bloomberg’s all over this. Horrific day for the brokerage stocks. One dropped 25% today alone. Reminiscent of the Detroit area gas wars of the 70s when you had four different brands on every corner and they’d dog it out, undercutting one another down to as low as 15 or 20 cents a gallon. Sweet while it lasted.

FYI: Charles Schwab Corp. announced plans to eliminate commissions for U.S. stocks, exchange traded funds and options, triggering a selloff in shares of competing online brokerages
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2019-10-01/schwab-fee-cuts-trigger-online-broker-bloodbath-video

@Ted It's complicated, but it really isn't 3.26% because of the costs of shorting which are counterbalanced by cash carry. I think a more accurate number is 2.75%, but Morningstar has 2.62%. Sans shorting, both fees are very high. I'm looking at Invenomic's fee sans short, it is around 2% but with a subsidy which is generally temporary. Sans subsidy, it's 2.17%. But let's say 2% for Invenomic to be fairer. 2% on $3 billion is still $60 million in fees a year for a boutique fund shop with only a few employees--11 on their web page: https://invenomic.com/our-team. Nice work if you can get it.

At the time when Boston Partners Long/Short closed to new investors in 2010 it had about $300 million in assets: https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831114/000095012310100719/g06730nvcsr.txt
So it's a little unsettling to read that the planned capacity for the newer Invenomic is $3 billion. Admittedly, this is Motamed's sole charge, and Boston Partners has multiple revenue streams from other funds, but technically each fund is supposed to be a separate investment company and the best interests of that particular fund's shareholders should be first. If you consider the management fee is 2.48% for Invenomic, about double that of a traditional active fund, and Boston Partners' fee is also very high, one might expect a much smaller capacity than $3 billion to stay nimble for shorting and small cap investing. I say this not because I dislike the fund's strategy or the manager but because I actually like them. Of course, Boston Partner's BPLEX is also now reopened to new investors and it has $247 million in it and a slightly higher 2.62% expense ratio. A 2.48% expense ratio on $3 billion in assets is $74 million in fees. It truly is an anomaly to see such high fees today. I hope they earn them.

"Merrill edge ... only costs are to buy private bonds, which can range from 10 to 20 bucks/trade for small investments buy 5k-20k."
Except for:
- Treasury auction bonds: free at most brokerages, $29.95/trade at ME (since they're not avail online)
- Secondary muni government bonds: $1/bond, $10 min
- Government agency bonds: $1/bond, $10 min
Of course "free" bond trades just mean that the commission is built into the price. Merrill Edge even discloses this in black and white.
Which brings us to markup. How good are the prices you get on bonds at Merrill Edge? For example (I just spot checked Calif. 10 year munis that were not zeros):
CUSIP 13077CU28 (AA, 7 yr maturity) Price/YTW:: ME: $109.668/2.175%; Fidelity: $109.284/2.231%
CUSIP 219764PA9 (AA, 10 yr maturity) Price/YTW:: ME: $109.924/1.467%; Fidelity: $109.799/1.488%
Bond inventory online?
ME has 10,000+ bonds (it sells no new issues online), including corporate, treasuries, agencies, and munis. 3,000- munis, fewer than 600 in California.
Fidelity offers 65,000+ bonds (including160 new issues). 50,000+ munis, including 7,000- in California.
The last time I compared Schwab with Fidelity on bond prices was around a decade ago, and my impression was that Schwab was slightly more expensive, but that may have changed.
Even with stock/ETF trades, all brokerages are not created equal. A zero commission rate does not guarantee you'll come out better.
https://www.stockbrokers.com/guides/order-execution
Vanguard stopped charging commissions on ETFs for all customers, not just Flagship customers a year ago. Unlike Merrill, and most of the other brokerages, for Flagship customers it offers a limited number of free TF fund trades annually. It's been doing that for many years. What changed fairly recently (a couple of years ago?) is that Vanguard increased the annual number of free trades.

What Schwab is doing is IMHO unique (so far) - no min balance, ETFs and stocks, and backed by a large institution that should be able to continue this indefinitely (especially since it makes money on all the free cash in its lower paying MMFs). In that sense I differentiate it from Firstrade. The latter strikes me as more like Scottrade, which for some time sold all mutual funds without a fee, but couldn't sustain that.
It will be interesting to see when Fidelity matches Schwab. Those two seem to move in parallel, e.g. both dropping their TF rates from $75-$76 down to $50 within a year(?) of each other.

FYI: We live, indeed, in interesting times.
You might think you hear in that statement an echo of “an ancient Chinese curse, ‘may you live in interesting time.’” Yes and no. I was thinking of the phrase but it’s not ancient. Also not Chinese. It appears to have been invented in 1936 by a member of the British foreign service who was trying to sound … uh, profound.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2019/10/october-1-2019/

@_zenbrew
Thankyou. what about Merrill edge, free trading IF have substantial amounts in holdings of boa/brokerage and 401k... only costs are to buy private bonds, which can range from 10 to 20 bucks/trade for small investments buy 5k-20k.
Vanguard is also trying to get rid of these practice also only for Flagship members
Every firms are trying to do same thing - free tradings, and cut down on their ETFs annual fees also to almost 0.

According to Marketwatch, starting October 7, Schwab will be eliminating all stock, ETF, & option commission fees.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/schwab-shares-slide-premarket-after-news-it-will-drop-commissions-on-us-stock-etf-and-options-trades-2019-10-01?siteid=bnbh
Since most of all my finances are with Schwab, I'm very glad to see this. Now they just need to eliminate all transaction fees (though they did decrease their fee from $76 to $49.95 without much fanfare about a year ago) on mutual funds as well.
Not surprisingly, I have not seen this announced on the Schwab website yet.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/932471/000093247119007316/ps2404.htm
497 1 ps2404.htm INTERNATIONAL CORE STOCK FUND-SUBSCRIPTION PERIOD SUPP
Vanguard International Core Stock Fund
Supplement Dated October 1, 2019, to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated October 1, 2019
Subscription Period
Vanguard International Core Stock Fund will hold a subscription period from October 1, 2019, through October 15, 2019. During this period, the Fund will invest in money market instruments or hold its assets in cash rather than seek to achieve its investment objective. This strategy should allow the Fund to accumulate sufficient assets to construct a complete portfolio and is expected to reduce initial trading costs.
The Fund reserves the right to terminate or extend its subscription period prior to October 15, 2019.
During the subscription period, you may invest in the Fund online (if you are registered for online access) or you may contact Vanguard by telephone or by mail to complete this transaction. Please see the Investing With Vanguard section of the prospectus for more details about requesting transactions.
© 2019 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.
PS 2404 102019

FYI: Mark Mulholland tells MarketWatch he set up a mutual fund, Matthew 25, after a homeless man quoted a section of that gospel from the bible.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/meet-the-quiet-christian-money-manager-whos-comfortably-beating-the-market-2019-09-30/print
M* Snapshot MXXVX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/mxxvx/quote
Lipper Snapshot MXXVX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/mxxvx
MXXVX Is Ranked #45 In The (LCB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-blend/matthew-25-fund/mxxvx

aka: The Link

It seems to me the real ramifications here are for the other riskier markets. Two reasons:
(1) These low cash rates are encouraging investors to take on risks they’d normally not assume were cash yielding a decent return - maybe in equities, maybe in duration, maybe in credit quality. Over-inflated asset prices are always problematic.
(2) Some risk assets are highly dependent on stable or declining interest rates and don’t do so well when rates are rising. Especially vulnerable are real estate, utilities, intermediate and long duration bonds.
Happy investing. :)

@MFO Members: 3/10/03 ICI Caught Up In GOP Ethics Flap:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNSPKy_-nfBEmSyH5oyCr9gyUBS4bg:1569853776690&source=hp&ei=UBGSXaudJ77K0PEPztmIyAc&q=ICI+caught+up+in+GOP+ethics+flap&oq=ICI+caught+up+in+GOP+ethics+flap&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160l2.3300.3300..5143...0.0..0.135.135.0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.YdA7WVNObZc&ved=0ahUKEwirhdOF4fjkAhU-JTQIHc4sAnkQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

I think this is the incident that I was referencing. Certainly, it does not identify TRP as pro-Republican or pro-Democrat. Sorry if I gave that impression:
In 2003 Republican Senator Michael Oxley tried to pressure mutual fund firms boards of directors into voting for a Republican to head the ICI, the trade association representing fund companies. T. Rowe Price found itself on the “wrong” side of the fence in that political dust-up, supporting the than Democratic leadership of the ICI.
Some relevant excerpts from the linked article:
“At issue are allegations that the committee's chairman, Ohio Republican Michael Oxley, has threatened to investigate the mutual fund industry unless the ICI brings aboard a Republican to succeed its president when he retires. ... The fracas blew into the open Feb. 15 when The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, claimed in a story that Mr. Oxley and some staff members were pressuring the ICI to hire a prominent Republican. ”
“The push, the paper claimed, was part of a broader campaign by Republicans to place party loyalists in top jobs at corporate lobbying offices and trade associations. Citing six unnamed sources, both Republican and Democratic, the Post reported that certain members of Mr. Oxley's staff suggested the congressional probe ‘might ease up if the mutual fund trade group complies with their wishes.’ “
“At the heart of the fracas is the fact that ICI president Matthew Fink and his likely successor, executive vice president Julie Domenick, are both Democrats.House Republican leaders have been trying in recent years to get more Washington professional and trade associations to hire Republicans as leaders, a campaign that has been dubbed the ‘K Street Project.’ “
“Meanwhile, the fracas has caused some roiling within the ICI. At a mid-February board meeting, representatives from The Vanguard Group in Malvern, Pa., T. Rowe Price Associates Inc. in Baltimore and Capital Management and Research Co. in Los Angeles expressed support for the organization's leadership.”
-
Where’s the link? @Ted has provided one that works better than mine did. See Ted’s follow-up post to access this Investment News article from March 10, 2003.

@Sven,
It would be difficult to construct the CD Ladder that I presently have with current CD rates being what they are. My ladder was built over time. And, I'm not sure I'll roll the one I have maturing come December as its current rate is 2.55% and a replacement, with like maturity, is at 1.80%. With this, currently my money market mutual funds offer the better deal should I choose to keep the money inside the cash area of my portfolio. I might look outside the cash area for opportunity for placement of this money coming due and take on more risk in return for better yield. Not sure at this time what I'll do. Something to ponder.
Skeet

CNBC-West is trumpeting this story Sunday night. And Asian markets are weaker on the news. Note: They not only propose to delist Chinese stocks on the exchange, they would also prohibit government pension funds from owning Chinese stocks.
Sounds to me like an attempt to scare investors away from China (and Asia in general) and thereby push the U.S. stock market even higher. Sure to hit a political storm if they try it. Suspect they won’t actually pull the stunt. Should they, other than rocking global equity markets near term, I doubt it would impact long range valuations or investors’ (global) returns over coming years.
Can’t help noting that T. Rowe is about to roll out a China fund. In the past they’ve gotten some flack from conservative pols who viewed them as liberal politically. Can’t recall the exact context or issue. One of their better fixed income managers, Mary Miller joined the Obama administration as an Undersecretary of Treasury in 2012.

I don't pay attention to MM or CD and all my cash sub is usually in HY munis. In 2018-9 I have used OPTAX and ORNAX. Sure, I know the risk and volatility and still invest in HY Munis. I invested usually at 99+% in stocks+bond OEFs and none are cash,MM,CD investments. I just keep several thousand which is about 2 months of our expense in the last 30 years while I was working and now at retirement. If we need more I just sell shares.