Any reason to pick up Vanguard PrimeCap funds? Comparing VHCOX and POGRX, the Vanguard fund is larger cap, less volatile (lower std deviation), slightly lower beta (relative to the best fit R3K growth) over the past three and five years, smaller downside capture. All of these suggest that VHCOX is, if anything, slightly less aggressive than POGRX. That's following your lead, equating aggressiveness with volatility.
The two funds have essentially the same number of holdings (136 vs. 128) though VHCOX is slightly more concentrated (32% in top ten vs. 26%), similar sector allocations (except that VHCOX seems to favor industrials a bit more and financials a bit less), the same foreign/domestic ratio, the same developed/emerging ratio, perhaps suggesting that VHCOX is slightly more aggressive than POGRX in its holdings.
I agree that VHCOX is the most aggressive of the Vanguard trio, but ISTM that it's not more aggressive than POGRX. It just happens to have done better over the past five years (though matched performance over the past ten). That makes is better performing, not more aggressive.
FWIW, M* says of POGRX that it is already more volatile and aggressive than all three of the Vanguard Primecap funds including VHCOX, with POAGX even more so.
Better Than Expected, Barely Good Enough: Profits And Stocks
"The seasonal trend is for stocks to go soft during the summer ... especially, August."
Just off-the-cuff (without further research) I'd tend to agree. Some of the worst stock market sell-offs seem to have occurred in late summer or early fall. The '29 crash, the '07-'09 debacle, and a one-day drop of more than 20% in '87. However, unlike some, I would never risk being substantially underweight equities or largely absent from the markets out of some kind of observance of this historical pattern. To me there's just too big a risk of making an incorrect call and missing out on big gains.
Isn't investing interesting?
I'd agree Ol'Skeet. I consider that's a good reason to follow the postings at MFO and indulge in other
financial print/electronic media. As you well know, however, there are some (well ... 1 in particular here) who profess to find the ebb and flow of markets of little no interest and who are content to "peek" at their investments only once or twice a year. Different strokes for different folks.
Better Than Expected, Barely Good Enough: Profits And Stocks The seasonal trend is for stocks to go soft during the summer ... especially, August. From what I have read, this seems to be so more times than not. I'm not surprised that earnings need to catch up with valuation. Stocks are not cheap as the article points out. I'm looking for a fall stock market rally and I'm thinking there needs to be a pullback (of sorts) for stocks to rally off of.
At the first of the year my thinking (and call) was that sometime during 2017 the S&P 500 Index would reach 2475 (or thereabouts). It's done that. Now, I'm thinking that the Index might do 2550 before year end (or thereabouts) if Congress can get it's act together in the near term and earnings continue to meet (or exceed) expectations. Will the Federal Government have to shut down due to the debt ceiling and/or lack of budget approval? What a way to run things. I'm thinking this is something that needs a fix along with healthcare and tax reform.
Isn't investing interesting?
Skeet
Will Jeffrey Gundlach's Trump-Like Approach On Twitter Work In Financial Services?
Better Than Expected, Barely Good Enough: Profits And Stocks
Your Mutual Fund Manager Just Doesn’t Matter Much Anymore
Morningstar screwed up again. I cancelled my M* Premium membership in 2005 --12 years ago !! because of all the M* website problems .---- 12 years later and it has only gotten worse !!!! UNBELIEVABLE
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation & Income Fund It's not the same Price I first invested with sometime between 1990 and 1995. Too d** many funds now days if you ask me. Not sure what they offered back than. I'll make a (probably incorrect) guess that it was around 30-40 funds in the '90-'95 period (not counting different share classes). Back than PRFDX was in large part their claim to fame. Around that period PRWCX was hatched. And it played second fiddle to the much larger PRFDX for a decade or longer.
Not too far off. M* shows 53 distinct funds that began no later than
12/3
1/95. About
1/3 of the number of funds they have now (
155, again from M*).
Though PRWCX was "hatched" a mere 8 months after PRFDX (6/30/86 vs.
10/3
1/85). At the end of
1994 PRFDX had $3.2B AUM, while PRWCX had "merely" $655M. (Data from
1995 prospectuses.)
Price had other claims to fame as well at the time, including PRNHX, then (and for another
15 years) managed by Laporte. At the end of
1994, The (then) small cap fund had $
1.6B AUM.
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation & Income Fund It's not the same Price I first invested with sometime between 1990 and 1995. Too d** many funds now days if you ask me. Not sure what they offered back than. I'll make a (probably incorrect) guess that it was around 30-40 funds in the '90-'95 period (not counting different share classes). Back than PRFDX was in large part their claim to fame. Around that period PRWCX was hatched. And it played second fiddle to the much larger PRFDX for a decade or longer.
I realize they need to stay competitive with their peers and so need to provide lots of choices and attract more and more assets. Also, that there's some practical limitation to how much $$ a manager wants to manage inside one fund. Haven't had a chance to delve into this latest offering. But all the comments here sound interesting and thought provoking. Doesn't sound like a fund I'd be interested in adding to my established mix.
Price is a class act in a lot of ways - customer service and integrity among them. The $20 fee used to pertain to accounts a lot smaller than it does now. Seems to me the magic number was once $5,000. In recent years that jumped to $10,000 or $20,000. Not a problem. If you keep a relatively modest $50,000 under their umbrella or go to paper statements only (as msf and others have noted) they waive the fees.
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation & Income Fund TRP does this with virtually all funds, including funds mentioned favorably at MFO such as PRWCX
which you own (
prospectus) and PRHSX (
prospectus).
T. Rowe Price charges an annual account service fee to help offset the relatively higher costs associated with servicing lower balance accounts. Accounts with low balances result in a disproportionate amount of service in relation to the amount of the investment, and this fee helps apportion some of the operating cost more equitably within a fund.
https://individual.troweprice.com/public/Retail/hUtility/Help/Fees-&-Minimums (click on fees tab)
You don't get charged this fee if you waive paper delivery of documents or invest more than $
10K. If you're going to inflict disproportionately high costs on a fund and won't meet it half way by accepting electronic delivery then it is fair to expect you to pay for some of those costs.
*******************************************
...That's why I don't see the $20.00 extortion fee? Because I've got more than $
10k invested in PRWCX? News to me. If various costs go up, why throw that onto the investor? The investor gives the fund money, by which the fund makes money. They've got a much bigger pile than myself. I take e-delivery of paperwork, but they still, by law, I believe. must send required tax documents by paper-mail.... Anyway, I swallow hard and accept e-delivery because I don't like to be extorted from...
