If you trend GLD and PRPFX, the 2 move in tandem. So, it could be argued PRPFX is a conservative way of owning gold, I think. I think you would own a fund like PRPFX for the same reason you would own a conservative balanced fund like maybe GLRBX, although over time I think a plain vanilla fund like GLRBX would have been a smoother and more lucrative ride. But in any case, it all comes down to being comfortable in how it fits your portfolio view.
What does that mean, PRPFX was "over-weight" gold? The weight within the portfolio doesn't change.

Mostly valid points @MikeM ...
With a combined 25% benchmark weighting to gold and silver, PRPFX will respond more to price changes in those metals than most funds having little or no exposure. Metals tend to be wildly erratic “assets”, which explains your preference at one time for this fund over owning GLD or a dedicated p/m fund. A bit like adding some water to your single malt to dampen the effect. I placed assets in quotes because there was a good thread here about 5 years ago debating whether gold should even be considered a “financial asset”.
Sounds like you had a reasonably good experience with PRPFX and moved out when momentum reversed. As with any open-ended fund, heavy selling by shareholders over short periods can ding returns, hurting those who stay behind - but there’s no way that I know of to prevent them, and I've occasionally engaged in the same practice to lock in a quick gain.
Adding a volatile investment to an otherwise conservative fund will affect returns during both the up and down cycles. Hussman, for example, once held significant mining shares in HSTRX. On the surface it appeared a mild mannered income fund. But in 2007 it outpaced the competition with a near 13% gain; than lost 8.37% in 2013. Suspect you’ll find those numbers track the performance / underperformance of GLD. (If memory is correct, p/m shares represented near 10% of the fund at times,)
I’ll go out on a limb and say I like gold / miners at the moment. In part that’s because most everything else appears so expensive. That said, timing the metals is a fool’s errand and I have 0% confidence in my outlook. Consequently, I currently maintain only a “token” foothold in a dedicated p/m fund.
Re “Overweight” (First mentioned in this thread by @PBKCM):
Unless a fund rebalances every day, rapidly rising prices for a particular asset might move that asset to a temporary overweight position relative to benchmark - until the manager rebalances. Don’t know how frequently PRPFX rebalances, but doubt it’s every day. So I’d expect that the fund went temporarily overweight gold for a stretch simply because it was appreciating much more rapidly than the fund’s other assets.

@mcmarasco: On 10/30/17 I purchased MSOPX to get more international exposure in Europe and Asia. I'm very pleased with it so far, returning 8.61% since purchase.
Regards,
Ted
M* Snapshot MSOPX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/msopx/quote.html

In a slightly related area, BFOR, the "GARP" ETF that follows the Barron's 400 index, failed to keep up with the S&P 500 in 2017. I haven't owned it for more than two years. However, I have found the M* wide-moat ETFs, the domestic MOAT (+23.16%) and the international MOTI (+30.16%) to be thoroughly rewarding funds to own.

Could be forced selling of the stock from fund shareholder redemptions now that Fairholme only has $1.8 billion left. The question is has the stock's weighting in the fund shrunk as a percentage of assets under management, not how many shares the fund has.

Who's Bruce Berkowitz???
Actually I see there is only 116 million in the allocation fund FAAFX, but strange to me, still 1.8 billion in FAIRX!!! Now that's dedication, I guess.

Hello.
This is Old_Skeet's market barometer report for the weekending January 12, 2018.
Last week, I reported that the 500 Index was overbought with a reading of 134. This week the barometer dropped six more points to a reading of 128 which falls into the extremely overbought area on the scale. With this, it seems investors have been buying in advance of an anticipated strong 4th quarter earnings reporting season. Generally, a lower barometer reading indicates there is less investment value in the Index over a higher reading. Last year the lowest recorded barometer reading took place during the Trump Bump with a reading of 131 for the weekending of 2/24/2017.
For the week short interest for SPY was up from 2.7 days to cover to 2.8 days.
Within the major sectors of the 500 Index the lead pack consisted (as the week ended) of XLE, XLF & XLY. XLK faltered and has now dropped back form lead pack status and was replace by XLF. Within the lead pack my money hound remains XLY (and has been for some time). Back in late fall I put money on the Christmas shopper and with the new tax overhaul package that has recently become law the consumer seems to still be spending.
Within the global compass the lead pack consisted (as the week ended) of GSP, EWJ & VTI. EEM has now begun to falter and was replaced by a new hound VTI. My money hound remains GSP (commodities) and has been for some time. It has had a good run but I'm thinking this might follow a seasonal pattern soon to be ending. I'll stay with it as long as it is a good producer and might declare it a keeper and move it to the speciality sleeve from the spiff sleeve.
I am currently only putting spiff investment money on one hound at a time within each compass as I limit myself to only three open spiffs at any one time within my portfolio. However, another strategy that I have used in the past is to put investment money on each hound found in the lead pack. Since, the lead hound investment strategy is meant to complement other portfolio positions in the form of special investments (aka spiffs) I am at this time investing only in the lead hound strategy. I let my investment remain on the money hound(s) as long as they can maintain lead pack status. Should a money hound began to falter and fall from the lead pack then the investment is closed and a new investment position is opened on another lead hound felt to have good legs. Thus, it becomes my new money hound.
The process, for me, continues until I get tired of watching the hounds run or the investment momentum is lost and I close out the spiffs.
Another strategy listed above by @MikeM known as the Leadership Strategy was used by Old_Skeet for a number of years. I moved away from it because it mostly centers around a a style oriented strategy plus a few other holdings. I favor the sectors of the 500 Index and the holdings of the global compass over it because my strategy takes me back to my days (many years ago) where I'd do some weekend betting at the dog track.
My dog track strategy (years back) was that I'd bet three dogs in most races to win, place or show. This gave me a good number of chances to have a dog, or dogs, place in the money. Generally, I only bet the first eight races as I found the later races harder to pick the money dogs.
Reminder, both the stock and bond markets are closed on Monday for Martin Luther King Day.
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
Have a good holiday weekend ... and, most of all I wish each of you ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

FYI: The members of Barron’s 2018 Roundtable arrived at our annual gathering in a jolly mood. And why not? U.S. stocks returned an impressive 20% last year, and are off to the races again this year, propelled by expectations of good economic growth and robust corporate earnings.
Our panelists, who spent Jan. 8 talking with the editors of Barron’s at the Harvard Club of New York, generally expect more of the same in the months ahead—more gains for equities, large-cap and small, as the global economy enjoys the most coordinated level of growth since the Eisenhower administration, notes Epoch’s William Priest. Few things these days, on Wall Street and elsewhere, merit that comparison.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/bright-outlook-for-the-economy-and-stocks-1515812439

FYI: We missed out on some of the fun at 2017’s stock market party. Stocks we picked to outperform the market ended up trailing their benchmarks, on average.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cetusnews.com/business/Barron’s-2017-Stock-Picks-Fell-Just-Short.r1h2jGvVM.html

@Old_Skeet and @VintageFreak Below is a chart of the mentioned etfs set for the last 64 trading days. What would one do with this charting to define an action? If you choose to change the time frame, right click upon the 64 days box and choose a predefined time. You may also left click and hold the day box to move the 64 days to another time frame. You may also drag the left or right end of the box to create your own time frame. If you hover a pointer/cursor on any line the fund description will appear, perhaps making things easier to detail.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?EQL,XLY,XLE,XLK,XLB,XLI,XLF&p=2&O=011000

@PBKCM,
Thanks for the analysis. No doubt I caught a sweet-spot in early 2016.
Would never want to be an apologist for Michael Cuggino. I could probably make a good case for not owning his fund as well. But for some reason, PRPFX is disliked by many who’ve never owned it, and misunderstood by a great many others. Some mistakingly term it a gold fund.
I noted previously the deleterious effect massive inflows and outflows had on this fund. Can’t help wondering whether the “overweight gold” you reference was related to the metal’s stratospheric rise in value during that period. It roughly sextupled in value between ‘99 and 2011, rising from $300 to $1900. That’ll put you “overweight”. Certain to give any manager a headache.
Another thought: Did the massive inflows into PRPFX contribute to gold’s rise during that period? That’s something I think about a lot - the possibility that heavy inflows into a fund (or certain category of funds) might indirectly drive the valuations of the assets in which they invest. The elephant chasing his tail.

Hi, Ron.
The Navigator just aims people at (mostly) external pages. Is the problem that you're getting 404 - page not found errors or external pages that seem stale? I used Seafarer as an example and clicked through all the links. USA Today and US News were both 404s, and Chip is working to solve that. None of the working pages contained stale data.
The two internal links - to the discussion board and commentary - both worked fine, though the most recent profile of SFGIX is 2015. That reflects the fact that Andrew's fund has gone beyond our universe (small, new, undiscovered), closed, and earned Morningstar recognition.
If you could give an example of the difficulty you experienced, we'll try to make it right.
As ever,
David

Here are some. What a surprise!
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-corporations-may-dodge-billions-in-us-taxes-through-new-loophole-experts-2018-1

Hi @Hank,
If go to PortfolioVisualizer.com and run a backtest of a portfolio consisting of 1/3 SPY, 1/3 GLD, and 1/3 IEF (rebalanced quarterly), and plot it against a benchmark of PRPFX, the charts look virtually identical from Sept 2015 thru Dec 2017.
Same is true from Dec 2004 through April 2011.
But from May 2011 through Aug 2015, PRPFX underperformed SPY/GLD/IEF by 4.75% per year. Undoubtedly because it was overweight gold.
I am glad for PRPFX investors it seems to be back on track to providing diversified returns!

"A bipartisan group of U.S. senators met with administration officials this week to discuss legislation to spend $1 trillion to improve infrastructure."
That sounds like the Donald's campaign promised that he walked back many months ago. CNN recently reported: "A White House official said on Tuesday the current proposal -- set to be unveiled in the middle of January -- would propose spending at least $200 billion on infrastructure projects over the next decade, with the hopes of spurring an additional $800 billion in state and local funding."
That's just $20B/year. To put that in perspective, $20B is about what he'd like to spend on protecting American shores. Not from rising tides and water surges and intensified storms in the decades to come, but from surging immigrants. That's also about what it may cost to build a few miles of subway in NY (Second Ave. Subway - $17B and growing).
The article seems somewhat conflicted, saying on the one hand that "Engineering and construction companies are a late-cycle industrial play" (i.e. this is cyclical), and on the other hand that "You can make a multi-year argument that there is pent-up demand for things like waterworks and roads and bridges and highways,"
The need is there and has been there for many, many years. Even the full $1T would close only half the $2T gap (ASCE figures).
Late cycle might be an argument that in good economic times the government has more money spend on that need, but the government just added an extra projected $1.46T to the national debt over the same ensuing decade. So it's not clear if even $200B let alone $1T could be budgeted.
I think infrastructure is a good niche to invest in for the long term, but IMHO the way to do it is with global funds that can move money back to US companies if and when the US gets its act together.

Is Navigator discontinued? I find examples of not being updated through 2017 or after 2016.

FYI: Volatility awaits shares of U.S. construction, engineering, building materials and other companies tied to infrastructure spending, but steel-nerved investors could be poised for gains if they weather a few bumps.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-weekahead/investors-green-light-infrastructure-trade-but-expect-road-bumps-idUSKBN1F10HA

Howdy folks,
I have owned PRPFX for going on 20 years. However, I do so considering it one of my core holdings. It's about 7% in each of three different accounts. I recognize that I could build it myself and do better but I'm lazy.
I do NOT see PRPFX as a substitute for gold or silver precious metals. Folks, you know me. I have been preaching for many years that everyone should have some small percentage of precious metals in their overall holdings: 3-10% depending upon your bent. More that this is always speculation.
That said, with some of these types of assets, you really have to go from asset allocation in an account to overall wealth allocation. Recall the Elder Baron R saying that to protect yourself though economic bad times, you should have 1/3 of your wealth in securities, 1/3 in real estate and 1/3 in rare art (define as you wish but it ain't Beanie Babies).
I would caution you folks to get some paper towels ready to wipe your screen before you run your own numbers.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono

If I were to invest in commodities, I'd buy DBC ....
This ETF has been on a big upswing since mid-2017, so a purchase today might not be timely. It certainly would not be buying at the bottom. Maybe the momentum will continue.

I have a smidgen of DBC, definitely not bought at the bottom, to follow along for a while in case the commodity surge extends into one of those long-cycle moves comms are famous for. It turned about summer solstice, and is up more than 20% since.

Have some cash div coming 15th....still don't know what to do.. Looking at OIH and UNIT

Schwab has always used cash accounts as, well, cash cows. It lards its "Intelligent" Portfolios (robo accounts) with cash, and it offers little in the way of interest for its core/transaction accounts.
Those are the accounts being addressed here. No broker (at least that I know of) offers prime MMFs for use in core accounts because of their potential illiquidity. Vanguard switched from offering VMMXX to VMFXX when the new MMF regulations kicked in. So we do need to be fair here. That said, VMFXX is yielding 1.24% (Jan 11, 2018). I'd mentioned FDRXX for Fidelity IRAs (0.95%) in another thread. Both way ahead of Schwab.
If you want the higher yields (and slightly higher risk) of prime MMFs, wherever you invest, you'll need to explicitly buy them. As Schwab writes in the disclosure statement: "You should also consider higher-return options for funds that are not needed immediately, as yields on any of our Cash Features [core account options] may be lower than those of similar investments or deposit accounts"
Schwab appears to be making mostly minor changes to its core account offerings. As I read it, Schwab is phasing out one option, while increasing insurance on its FDIC bank sweep option and adding higher interest tiers (rates not disclosed) on its bank sweep and "Schwab One® Interest" options. (Schwab One® Interest is where your cash is held by Schwab as a general obligation of the company, like "Fidelity Cash".) The option that's getting phased out would let you use one of Schwab's MMFs (sweep share class) as your core account. So all that remains to use for a core account is cash (no MMF) - cash in a bank, or cash held by Schwab.
Schwab is adding more tiers to the interest rate schedule for these two options. The highest tier is now at $1M, for all the good that does. The tiers will be at:

• Balances of $0 to $24,999.99
• Balances of $25,000.00 to $99,999.99
• Balances of $100,000.00 to $249,999.99
• Balances of $250,000.00 to $499,999.99
• Balances of $500,000.00 to $999,999.99
• Balances of $1,000,000.00 or more

Schwab had been using one bank for the bank sweep. So your cash was FDIC-insured "only" up to $250k, or $500K if it was a joint account. It will begin using two banks, so your money (if owned jointly) could be insured up to $1M (2 x $500K), getting you close to that $1M tier - a point that Schwab makes in its disclosure.
Much of the rest is boilerplate about bank insurance, which type of Schwab accounts can use which sweep features, etc.
The only negative I see in the change is the phasing out of a Schwab Sweep Money Fund as a core account option. For example, one will not be able to open an account using SWGXX, the "Sweep Class" shares of its Government Money Fund. That class is currently yielding 0.65% according to Schwab. To show how even here Schwab milks these core accounts, the fund's Investor class shares SNVXX currently yield 0.91%.