Rode it for about 2 years from around $65 (summer 2014) down to $26 (early 2016) and than back up again to $50-55 where I got out. Bought the dips and sold a few rallies along the way. Used PRNEX as a proxy. Did OK in the end, but I'll tell you it was no fun. No appetite to play it again - Sam
This time the slide might be a warning of a coming recession. Bond yields also seem to suggest that. Hope I'm wrong. But recessions happen. @Maurice - Love your new picture. Looks more like a normal person than the last one did.

He is also famous for moving to Singapore (with his third wife) saying America is through.
If he hadn't run Quantum with Soros (from 1970 to 1980
1) he would still be poor 2) he wouldn't be able to afford three wives or move to Singapore 4) he would have had to stay home and work for a living and not gallivant all over the world in a Mercedes and (best of all)
5) No one would listen to him or care what he thinks.

The Beatles have already established the phrase of "Magical Mystery Tour", but the words appropriately describe some personal investing styles and active managed funds, IMHO.
Be it musical groups, sports teams, corporations, small private companies or your other choices; the stars do align from cosmic forces, a function of cyclical mathematics or some other energy that one may choose to attempt to define; or perhaps, just by chance; circumstances find certain people and events to discover one another and bind into a positive and overwhelming presence of intellect that is difficult for 99.99% of the world population to comprehend.
I suspect most folks here have and can define, to a point; a recollection of a sports team or musical group that "just had that superior edge", at least for a given time frame. Although I'm not a big time sports fan and don't fly U of Michigan or Michigan State flags at the house, I do pay attention. Superior head coaches and the selected staffs help build a successful program which results in attracting superior athletes to the sports team. These periods may run for many years and then get "clunked" for any number of reasons. The duration of success for many collegiate teams today is highly impacted by the money draw into professional sports, that finds superior college team players exiting after two years. These magic combinations of managers, staff and players may also be found in professional team sports. One must also consider the other side of the coin into the world of "can't get it right" for long time frames. The Detroit Lions football team comes to my mind for such a circumstance, and especially relative to the New England Patriots, eh?.
Well, anyway; you get the gist of my thinking, yes?; as related to active managed mutual funds.
Are these the circumstances behind the superior performance of DSEEX DSENX PIMIX PONDX (both classes noted for the purpose of one's purchase limits)?
Will this superior performance continue for 1, 2, 3, 5 or 10 more years? Your guess is as good as mine, I imagine.
Is the risk involved with the magic sauce formula of these funds over and above some threshold of personal investment risk tolerance? Only the individual investor can answer this question, yes? But, one can not argue against the skill of the use of the "magic sauce" by management, at this time, correct?, based upon performance.
We're investors and have exposure to many forms of investment risk beyond our control and vision. Tis the old adage of "get out of the kitchen, if you can't stand the heat".
Six month, after inception, slide report DSEEX / DSENX . You may find this document of interest, although the subject matter has been discussed here previously.
http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/5-20-2014-CAPE-webcast-slides-Valuation-Its-All-Relative-mailing.pdf
Alright, the end of the early morning jabber from this house; and moving on to another cup of coffee before starting chores for this day.
Take care,
Catch

FYI: Six stocks are among the top holdings of both a value-based and a growth-based ETF
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-major-value-fund-mirrors-a-major-growth-one-more-than-you-may-expect-2017-06-19/print

FYI: (When Jim Rogers talks, the Linkster doesn't listen !)
When Jim Rogers talks, investors listen. One of the world's most famous investors, Rogers is known for his no-nonsense style and investment wisdom. He is the author of several best-selling books, including his latest, "Street Smarts: Adventures on the Road and in the Markets." ETF.com recently spoke with Rogers for his take on the latest financial market developments
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/jim-rogers-bracing-crash?nopaging=1

In previous 401k account, I held PRGTX, PRNEX, and PRLAX for an year or two during 2015-16. All 3 of them made money anywhere between 20 to 30% though insignificant portion of the overall portfolio. I had to sell all 3 of them, when moving to a new 401k account as part of acquisition of our employer by another company.
I planned to buy all 3 of them in other IRA accounts that I held at TDA, but procrastinated, and in no time they were up anywhere from 10-30% this year except for PRNEX. Now, I feel it is too late to buy them, especially PRGTX. (:-

I held it from 2006 till in taxable account till I bought home in 2014. Then I bought it in Retirement account, but sold as I already had FPACX in one of my retirements accounts. Regret that decision.
I used to have PRWCX, OAKBX, and ARTKX in taxable account. Pretty all of them from 2006 in various percentages as part of my safer taxable portfolio, as I know I need this money in future for home. All of them made me good money.

Buffett's rules .1Don't lose MOney 2 Don't forget rule 1 have been followed by all managers of this fund when they started managing and wrote that more or less in their first quarterly reportga

Don't lose money? Yes, agree. But than continue to generate these kinds of average annualized returns?
PRWCX:

Average annualized returns: 1-year 11.73%, 5-years 11.59%, Since Inception (21-years) 11.34% https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/personal-investing/mutual-funds/historical-performance.html
Talk about consistency!
BTW: The fund wasn't always so universally loved here. Here's a former poster named "Max" in November 2013 testing the waters. He was new to PRWCX and appeared in need of assurances from some of those familiar with the fund. I'm glad we were able to help at the time. http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/9085/changes/p1

Aw, shucks..... ;)

@hank...@Crash

Here's a former poster named "Max" in November 2013 testing the waters.

I have a feeling things worked out just fine for "Ol' Max" and his affinity for PRWCX and other TR Price funds.

Buffett's rules .1Don't lose MOney 2 Don't forget rule 1 have been followed by all managers of this fund when they started managing and wrote that more or less in their first quarterly reportga

Don't lose money? Yes, agree. But than continue to generate these kinds of average annualized returns?
PRWCX: Average annualized returns: 1-year 11.73%, 5-years 11.59%, Since Inception (21-years) 11.34% https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/personal-investing/mutual-funds/historical-performance.html
Talk about consistency!
BTW: The fund wasn't always so universally loved here. Here's a former poster named "Max" in November 2013 testing the waters. He was new to PRWCX and appeared in need of assurances from some of those familiar with the fund. I'm glad we were able to help at the time. http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/9085/changes/p1

Buffett's rules .1Don't lose MOney 2 Don't forget rule 1 have been followed by all managers of this fund when they started managing and wrote that more or less in their first quarterly reportga

Interval funds are nothing new - they've been around for decades, but they seem to have reached more widespread awareness (including the relatively new term "interval funds") in the past few years.
Here's a page from CEFadvisors.com, with no date, but google says that the page comes from Sept. 25, 2004: "Some closed-end funds are excessively concerned with the discount. Many CEFs have successfully reduced their discount and enhanced performance by a combination of share repurchases and/or periodic tender offers at or near NAV."
My impression is that this accurately states where the idea of periodic redemptions came from - CEF trading at too high a discount. Periodic redemptions, as contasted with no redemptions (just market trading) would tend to keep them closer to NAV, somewhat like ETFs.
A couple of decades ago, fund sponsors took a stab at offering stable value funds outside of the 401k arena. These funds came to the interval fund structure from the other end of the spectrum - trying to mimic open end funds (daily redemptions) while clamping down on trading, since stable value funds need long term money to work. Sponsors gradually converted these to open end funds (my guess is because people didn't "get" interval funds); that and tighter SEC scrutiny killed off the stable value funds.
The point is that there can be different reasons why a fund chooses to offer periodic redemptions. The boomlet in these funds now strikes me as marketing. Instead of simply starting these funds as CEFs and watching how their market discounts moved, they're being sold from the start as pseudo-open-end funds to garner a wider audience.

If you didn't want to worry about your choice for the next 2 years, there's this...a 2 year note at 1.364%:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/treasury-yields-climb-as-stocks-oil-lure-bidders-2017-06-19

FWIW, PFIDX (low duration income fund) is another PIMCO fund co-managed by Ivascyn that I've been using. Similar return over the past year as PONDX with 1/2 the duration and maturity. Similar foreign allocation also. I don't know if this fund will bode well or better than PONDX during interest rate hikes. We'll find out I guess.

Surprised to learn of international stake. Don't monitor that closely. Hold it for inlaws along with RPGAX - which I expected to provide international exposure. I guess it is still okay to hold both.Curious that M* says "non us stock" is 3.25%. something wrong somewhere

From TRP's website (end of May): Domestic stock 59.1%, Domestic bond 20.4% Foreign stock 3.6%, Foreign bond 2.4%, Remainder in cash, convertibles and preferred.
Lipper, however, lists 26% in foreign holdings. I'm not sure if the 26% applies to all holdings or just to the equities. Agree with VF the numbers are confusing.
I've never known the fund to invest much in foreign stocks. Agree with the accolades. Owning it nearly since inception, I'm somewhat in disbelief. Suspect even the folks at Price are scratching their heads over this one's continued success under different managers and in different market environments.

Not sure why these are 9 rules of "research". My ANALysis is totally based on #1 and #9, but how the heck is that "research".
And don't we know we have to have 10 of everything? What's this "9"?
I need to talk to Ned Davis. #10 - Search on Google once is "Search". Search on Google twice is "Research".

This has nothing to do with how much to save, but unless you have LOTS of money, the adage "Live BELOW your means" is a prudent thought. This can allow you to save more. The rule used to be to save at least 10% of your pay...out of sight, out of mind. I think that is still a pretty decent target for young people.

Excellent fund, which I own as my only direct tech sector exposure. Like that it's nicely global and more importantly, as I've said elsewhere in the past, doesn't hold the usual "top 10" tech companies like everyone else. In other words, it zigs when the rest of the industry zags -- I like that.
I just wish it paid out LTCGs during the year to help with accumulation DCA'ing. But that's a minor thing for an otherwise stellar growth/sector fund.

A truly admirable fund. Smartly, they closed it to new investors a long time ago. It is not a balanced fund by any means. It is much more of a risk-aware global allocation fund. Current allocation of57% U.S. stock, 22% international stock, 22% bonds (mostly short-term HY, and about 15% in cash. Definitely NOT a balanced fund. But this do-your-own-thing approach has worked for the fund for three decades.

IVW has a stronger record than all of the listed funds except PARWX. So not sure why I would pay as much as 1% more for questionable net returns, especially now unless you have no holdings in large cap growth.