While it is obviously true that distributions dilute NAV on the day of posting, almost all high quality funds prices will revert to mean fairly quickly. PRWCX posted its last dividend on Dec 18, 2023 and NAV fell over 3.5% on the day, but price fully recovered in less than two months.

Actually it took slightly more than two months (until Feb 22) for the price to rise to its record-date price, but let's not quibble over days.
Your theory is that the dividends adds to total return, rather than just "swiping" value from share price. Specifically, PRWCX had "a massive dividend and CG payout in December, putting it squarely back in the pre-tax Total Return lead."
The evidence presented is that PRWCX's price recovered in two months. The problem here is that you have not distinguished between price appreciation due to normal market movement (i.e. peers moving somewhat in tandem) and additional price appreciation due to mean reversion (i.e. recovering price drop when div distributed).
Between Dec 19 (PRWCX ex-date) and Feb 22, PRWCX appreciated from $33.66 to $35.05, for a gain of 4.13%. (The distribution of $1.4075 was 4.03% of the record date price.)
For reference, FBALX, from its ex-date of Dec 21 to Feb 22 appreciated from $26.81 to $28.07, for a gain of 4.70%. (The distribution of 29.1¢ was 1.08% of the record date price.)
In case the two day difference in the time periods seems problematic, rest assured that it doesn't matter. The price of PRWCX was identical on Dec 19 and Dec 21.
As I understand your theory, PRWCX should have appreciated substantially more than FBALX to make up for its larger distribution (4.03% vs 1.08%). But it didn't. PRWCX appreciated roughly the same amount as FBALX; in fact it appreciated about 1/2% less. Normal performance difference between similar funds. Nothing to suggest that the funds were appreciating in part to make up for their ex-div price drops.
Not that this disproves your theory. But it dismisses your numeric data. It would help if you could advance some explanation of why the price of a fund, determined by the prices of over 300 underlying securities, would appreciate merely because it distributed a dividend.
Maybe, perhaps, you could make such an argument for an individual stock (e.g. investors think they're getting value from the div so they bid up the stock price). But such an argument doesn't fly when it comes to mutual funds.

My wife and I have been retired about 8 years. We both have pensions and are receiving Social Security, so we are investing more aggressively than many people our age (70). We haven’t had to tap our IRAs since retiring, but required distributions will start in a couple of years.
Currently, we are invested as such:
- 45% in domestic stocks, virtually all in mutual funds
- 11% in foreign stock funds
- 32% in bond funds (including balanced and allocation)
- 10% cash in CDs, Treasuries and money markets
- 4% other options in mutual funds, such as REITs and convertibles
We own many funds, and I’m too embarrassed to count them up, generally at least 5% of total assets in each account. We have five separate accounts— two traditional IRAs, two Roth IRAs and a taxable brokerage account. I have no compulsion to simplify matters because I have no trouble keeping up with our accounts and I like each account to be well diversified. I don’t trust any fund or small collection of funds to invest most of our money in because I’ve seen many excellent funds falter or go through prolonged dry spells over the years.

Great contributions all. Thanks for the insights.
I didn’t state my allocation earlier. I’m currently at 40% equity, 30% bond, 20% short-term fixed income and 10% “other.” The equity stake usually fluctuates between 40% and 50%. Anywhere in that range is fine with me. Recently sold an equity heavy CEF and replaced it with a somewhat aggressive bond heavy CEF. So the percentages changed by 5% overnight.
All for simplifying / consolidating. A few years ago portfolio was at about 18 holdings. Down to 12 today plus cash.

There seems to be a lot of ink on this forum about short-term impressions of investing with Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc. I could care less. Long term is what matters to me. I first started investing about 1990 (outside my 401k). I wanted to invest with Vanguard but their minimums were too high for small investors like myself, so I chose T Rowe Price instead, as well as several boutique funds touted by M*. A few years later, tired of getting bombarded by statements and other paperwork, I consolidated all of my investments except for TRP funds with Fidelity. The funds network provided me access to a range of fund companies with greatly simplified paperwork.
What I’ve found investing with Fidelity over three decades is that it’s a well-run company with excellent customer service. Over the years, I’ve sold many of the boutique funds from other companies and reinvested the proceeds in Fidelity funds. Here is why. Fidelity has a deep bench of managers and analysts. If a fund underperforms at Fidelity, they generally fix the problem and assign new management. If a skilled manager retires, they generally replace them with little change in performance. On the few occasions when I’ve experienced problems, I spoke with a Fidelity representative and the problem was fixed immediately.
I handle all of my investments on-line, and Fidelity’s website in my opinion is excellent. I used to rely on M* for investment research, but Fidelity’s website now surpasses M* substantially in my view. I have found M*’s recommendations and star ratings to be next to useless. Using Fidelity’s on-line tools, I feel that I can make better choices about fund options than I could using M*. Fidelity also posts many articles about investing that are excellent. I have been so satisfied with Fidelity that I moved all of my TRP funds to Fidelity once they became available on their funds network. In my view, TRP’s customer service had declined and their funds network and website couldn’t compare with Fidelity. I still hold some TRP funds in my Fidelity account, but exchanged the under-performers for Fidelity funds or other funds available through their network.
Fidelity also makes it very easy to invest in CDs and Treasuries, with no additional fees and a wide range of offerings. Their money markets are competitive, and all cash is automatically invested in the MM fund of your choice. Fidelity has assigned me an advisor, who we meet with once a year at no cost. If I die before my wife, she will have someone she trusts to turn to. I don’t know if Fidelity will waive fees or minimum investment amounts for institutional classes of funds because I don’t ask for or expect special treatment not available to others.
My post is not intended to slight Schwab, Vanguard or other fund companies— but merely to describe why I am a satisfied customer after using Fidelity for about 35 years. I have no intentions of switching.

I spent years in what SS calls "non-covered" jobs. WTF is THAT? It means you did not pay in. That's junk. I've ALWAYS paid in. Finally, I was asked to come in, in person, with last 2 tax returns. My SS monthly jumped from $700+ to $1,200.00. That was pre-Medicare.
Retired early, pension started lower than it would otherwise. But it is very prudently managed. I'll get a raise of 4.5% in July along with everyone else. Active workers will be given a 4.5% bump-up in "pension credits." They do that mid-year, rather than January. Silly. But I'm glad for it.

5 accounts = 2 Roths, 1 IRA, 1 Joint Taxable & my wife's current work plan which is a savings annuity. I don't have access to a work plan or pension, most of my working life I never have.
2 mutual funds = 90.7%
1 ETF = 2.6%
2 stocks = 3.2%
1 MM Fund = 3.5%
60.2% Stocks
29.4% Bonds
10.4% Cash, MM, Other
Because I get bored, I allow myself a small part of the portfolio to play with but leave the overwhelming majority to people who are far more intelligent than I (think Giroux & team)...so far, it has worked well, we are blessed.

Like almost everything else, it’s best not to generalize about pensions. My wife and I both have pensions with the state of North Carolina. It is very conservatively managed, although I’m sure it has some private equity. The pension is funded roughly half from employees paychecks and the rest from the state legislature. The state also has an optional 401k plan, but does not contribute to that except for state troopers. Unlike Social Security, the NC pension has no automatic inflation adjustments. I have been retired 7 years and my wife 9 years, and we have not received any inflation increases, although the legislature has awarded a few one-time bonuses some years. So, for those people whining about fat government pensions, that certainly isn’t true for NC. I would wager that most private workers with 401k plans have more generous retirement plans than NC government employees. The NC pension plan is essentially an annuity with no inflation adjustments. Fortunately, my wife and I both voluntarily contributed to the state 401k plan, which provides our inflation adjustment— again with no contributions from state taxpayers.

@Observant1,
I am with HealthEquity and they do not allow in kind transfers either and my State does not recognize HSA which means State taxes to liquidate and move. I may still do it if the market crashes in 2025.
But you may have leverage I do not. UMB has a relationship with Fidelity and see if you are able to use that to your advantage.

3 Accounts.
1Stock ETF
6 Fixed Income Mutual funds.
1 MM fund.
43 stocks which are 60% of total.
No dedicated International.

@Observant1,
I have a non-Fidelity HSA and can not transfer out but based on everything I read and researched, I can vouch for Fidelity HSA.

@gman57,
Nice job consolidating your holdings!
I currently have 11 holdings across 6 accounts.
I'd like to decrease the number of holdings but it would be counter-productive at this stage.
Important factors for me include taxes, fund availability,
and varying risk levels associated with different accounts.

@msf,
I made this single sentence paragraph to set it apart for a reason - "The fund commentary indicates the fund was not static and had turnover during the quarter."
If I stated the following in a separate paragraph perhaps it would have been easier for you but I had reasons at that time for not creating an additional paragraph:
"I was hoping with heavy inflows they also would be able to buy new or more promising investments. But when I look at holdings at M*, as of Feb 29, of the 18 holdings 7 are three star (means fairly valued) and rest are two star or one star (means overvalued). No 4 or 5 star holdings (nothing in its holdings was undervalued). M* also says Portfolio P/E was 20, the same as for SPHQ as of that date (I estimated working backwards)."
You say, "Many people assume that low or zero turnover means that a fund isn't changing its positions - a misunderstanding that your post reinforced, intentionally or not. I attempted to address that misunderstanding by providing M*'s definition of turnover and by using MRFOX as a case study."
This is what I was referring to in my suggestion to you. There is no reason to assume I did not know M* definition or the fund's definition or the historic unawareness (or misunderstanding) of forum members continues to persist. Reading 100s of pages a day (including legal opinions) was my job and am aware that if one misses footnotes one got nothing. There are times when I am strapped for time and skip portions but I would place that caveat in my posts. I take posting on investing matters here as a serious responsibility because I do not want others losing money (including opportunity costs from not making money) because of what I post and I presume others do the same. Of course, I understand sometimes posters mix in their investing posts emotion, venting, joking, etc., but I never presume they need to be educated.
I think a lot of ink is spilled in this forum because people overlook context in either understanding others' posts or in responding. Many times I see folks responding to one or two sentences taken out of the context of the rest of the post. Trying to understand where the poster might be coming from and giving them the benefit of doubt made me a better listener. You all made me a better person (whether I set out to be or not).
I wrote the post specifically to @Baseball_Fan as we both own the fund and he seems to understand my posts. I do not wish to spend more time on a matter that is not of direct use to anyone specific.
Thanks for your posts.

My wife worked 14 years for our county and upon reaching age 62 her monthly pension benefit will be $512...we're rich! And will be living a life of leisure on our super yacht!

Confirmation statements for my UMB HSA Saver account have been unavailable for mutual fund purchases
made since 04/22. I first contacted UMB regarding this issue on 05/10.
I've sent or received six emails/phone calls related to this matter.
The Customer Care Manager was unable to provide an estimated resolution date when we last spoke on 06/05.
I've finally decided to send an email to the Chairman/CEO of UMB Financial Corporation
and to the President of UMB Financial Corporation.
I'm not familiar with UMB's internal applications/systems but it shouldn't take over a month to resolve this issue.
Edit/Add: The email to the Chairman/CEO and President was composed and scheduled to be sent on 06/18.
I cancelled sending this email and submitted a BBB complaint instead.
If the issue is not resolved within a reasonable time, I'll then send an email to the Chairman/CEO and President.

I simplified this year, sold the last of multiple holdings in April.
Across 6 accounts: (2 Roth, 1 IRA, 1 IIRA, 1 HSA, Taxable)
2 ETFS, 1 Mutual fund, 8 T-bills
Cash - 11% T-bills, 3% cash
Bonds - 37% PIMIX
Stocks - 33% VOO, 16% VONG

You wrote that you were "hoping with heavy inflows [MRFOX] also would be able to buy new or more promising investments."
During the period in question (the one ending Aug '23 with zero turnover), MRFOX increased the number of its positions by almost 20%. One of the new positions (Disney DIS) was clearly undervalued at the time according to M*. M* pegged its fair value around $145 while its price hovered around $90.
Given these facts, could you clarify your hopes and whether the addition of Disney failed to meet those hopes? Discover Financial Services DFS, also added by the fund in this period, was similarly undervalued.
Perhaps, since M* currently rates DIS and DFS as 3*, what you were hoping was that the fund would dump these recent acquisitions, seeing as they have met some sort of target?
---
Many people assume that low or zero turnover means that a fund isn't changing its positions - a misunderstanding that your post reinforced, intentionally or not. I attempted to address that misunderstanding by providing M*'s definition of turnover and by using MRFOX as a case study.
One wouldn't know the precise definition by looking at MRFOX's website, as its footnote says only that "turnover is a measure of how frequently assets within a fund are bought and sold by the manager."

55% Moneymarket
45% Fixed Income
Fixed Income:
51% Treasury
49% CDs

11 stocks, 50% of account total
10 CEFs, 20%
6 OEFs, 18%
4 ETFs, 10%
MM/Cash, 2%
8% of equity holdings are international or EM, the rest is US.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1498498/000119312524161727/d765972d497.htm
497 1 d765972d497.htm ASHMORE FUNDS
ASHMORE FUNDS
Supplement dated June 14, 2024
to the Statutory Prospectus for Class A, Class C and Institutional Class Shares
of Ashmore Emerging Markets Corporate Income ESG Fund
On June 12, 2024 the Board of Trustees of Ashmore Funds approved a plan of liquidation (the “Plan of Liquidation”) for the Ashmore Emerging Markets Corporate Income ESG Fund (the “Fund”), with such liquidation scheduled to take place on or about June 14, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”). On or before the Liquidation Date, the Fund will seek to convert substantially all of its portfolio securities and other assets to cash or cash equivalents. Therefore, the Fund may depart from its stated investment objectives and policies as it prepares to liquidate its assets and distribute them to shareholders. Any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed on that date. As soon as practicable after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute pro rata to the Fund’s shareholders of record as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date all of the remaining assets of the Fund, after paying, or setting aside the amount to pay, any expenses and liabilities of the Fund.
The Fund may make one or more distributions of income and/or net capital gains on or prior to the Liquidation Date in order to eliminate Fund-level taxes. For taxable shareholders, the automatic redemption on the Liquidation Date generally will be treated like other redemptions of shares generally – that is, as a sale that may result in a gain or loss to shareholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Effective as of the close of business on June 14, 2024, Institutional Class Shares of the Fund will no longer be available for purchase by new or existing investors or be available for exchanges from the other series of Ashmore Funds, except for shares that may be purchased as a result of dividend reinvestments.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of the Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth under “How to Sell or Exchange Shares” in the Fund’s Prospectus.
Shareholders may also exchange their shares for shares of a different series of Ashmore Funds, subject to any investment minimums and other restrictions on exchanges as described under “How to Sell or Exchange Shares” in the Fund’s Prospectus.
Investors Should Retain This Supplement for Future Reference

I can't see the referenced chart, though I suspect it is a price chart and not a chart of total returns.

NO! The chart is a Morningstar Total Return graph for the past five years.
While it is obviously true that distributions dilute NAV on the day of posting, almost all high quality funds prices will revert to mean fairly quickly. PRWCX posted its last dividend on Dec 18, 2023 and NAV fell over 3.5% on the day, but price fully recovered in less than two months.