I do understand @BaluBalu’s point that the fund is lagging peers this year. And, like him, I try to stay broadly diversified across asset classes. Still, that +3.63% YTD would translate into something close to a 10-11% annual return if it continues. Not too shoddy - especially following last year’s +18.8%.
Looks like the fund has some high fliers in its equity portfolio, including Microsoft. So I’d look to the 32% in bonds for clues to any underperformance. Do its peers hold that high a percentage? Would depend on duration. But most bonds have been hammered this year - even at the relatively short end. There was some turn-around late last week, and bonds are looking good in the overnight trading with the 10-year currently near 4.5% after topping out around 4.7% before Powell’s press conference..
Folks know I’m agnostic on Mr. Giroux’s fund. But cannot dispute the performance and well deserved M* gold rating. I hope the fact I don’t own the fund doesn’t exclude my participation. I did own it for over 20 years,
Interesting thread.

After years of delay, Boeing to try again with Starliner space capsule
An excerpt from The Washington Post:

Before a door-size panel blew out of a Boeing 737 Max, leaving a gaping hole in the side of an Alaska Airlines aircraft shortly after takeoff; before whistleblowers came forward to say they were threatened for bringing up safety issues at the company; and before the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the blowout incident, Boeing was struggling with another set of issues, on another high-profile vehicle.
Its Starliner spacecraft, designed to fly astronauts to orbit under a $4.2 billion contract from NASA, had suffered a series of problems that put its launch with astronauts years behind schedule. Its onboard computer had failed during its first test flight. A second test flight was scrubbed after valves in the vehicle’s service module stuck and wouldn’t operate. Then, after the craft finally flew a test mission successfully without anyone on board, Boeing discovered that tape used as insulation on wiring inside the capsule was flammable and would need to be removed. The parachute system also had problems, which forced the company to redesign and strengthen a link between the parachutes and the spacecraft.
Now, a decade after NASA awarded Boeing a contract to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, Boeing will finally attempt to fly its Starliner spacecraft with people onboard. If all goes to plan, at 10:34 p.m. on Monday, the company is set to fly a pair of veteran astronauts, Sunita Williams and Barry “Butch” Wilmore, on a mission that will be one of the most significant tests for Boeing’s space division — and for NASA — in years.
The flight is intended to see how the spacecraft performs in space with a crew onboard. If all goes well, the spacecraft will catch up with the space station — which travels at 17,500 mph — about a day after lifting off. Along the way, the crew members will test manually flying the spacecraft before it docks autonomously with the station. NASA and Boeing will also be eager to see how the spacecraft’s heat shield and parachutes work as it brings Williams and Wilmore back to Earth after about eight days.
NASA officials express confidence in Boeing and say the company has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the mission will be successful. They are eager to have another spacecraft, in addition to the one SpaceX flies, that can ferry astronauts to the station. “I can say with confidence that the teams have absolutely done their due diligence,” James Free, NASA’s associate administrator, said at a briefing last week.

I hesitate to engage with this tread in light of the poster’s negative experience at Vanguard. Like all brokerages, their unique fee schedules continue to evolve. Apparently this change at Vanguard strikes a nerve with many investors.
With that said, we have invested with Vanguard for over 30 years for our retirement and college 529 plans. And now, we use Vanguard’s advisory service. For Flagship customers, there is a special phone number that speeds up the connection. At the same time, we have equally size of asset at Fidelity and the combination of the two provide the best of both world, at least for us.

Almost 4x as much as the Index in Yoots. And yoots will never be a home run play. Over 8% of portfolio in Yoots. Almost 11% in Financials. (My own portf holds much more in Financials.) Financials, we are told, will break-out and flourish when rates come down from where they are, currently....
...So, just between the Yoots and Financials, yer talking about almost one-fifth of the PRWCX portfolio.
30% in Tech. That's a huge slug. He's betting heavily on AI, I suppose. 20% in healthcare. About 7% higher than the Index. So, now we're up to 77%.
Keep in mind that there was that shallow-ish April swoon. I like to track these others, for comparison:
DODBX has sunk to BRONZE, per M*. YTD it's up by +2.98, landing it just into the bottom one-third of the category.
MAPOX: up +3.41% YTD, 52nd percentile, in-group.
PRWCX = +3.63, in 39th percentile, as you noted. The YIELD is up just a bit from the last time I looked. The fund holds about one-third of AUM in fixed income. Still a long way to go, this year.

The fund has received the most inflows in the last 12 months than during any other 12 month period in the last 10 years.

I hate hearing that, but I suppose opening up that institutional ticker, TRAIX, added to the inflows. I wish they didn't do that.
@Roy posted this prospectus/ manager commentary in a post early in the year. Some of the favorites listed have not come through so far, but the year is young.
Personally, I have close to a 18-20% of portfolio stake in PRWCX and I added another 10% to PRCFX, so I'm heavily indebted to David G. To be honest, the slow YTD numbers do not concern me.
https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/summary.asp?
From Roy's post early in the year.
Giroux discusses AI and utilities.
Sees value in:
1) GARP stocks.
2) Utilities
3) High quality high yield and loans.
4) Software.
5) Healthcare.
6) Energy. (Unusual for the fund)
Does not see value in:
1) Growth & tech that does not benefit from AI.
2) Staples. He REALLY dislikes staples.

https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/all-mutual-funds/fees
To me, the Fidelity text on short term trading fees (STTR) on transferred OEFs is not as clear as Schwab's ("Schwab's short-term redemption fee of $49.95 will be charged on redemption of funds purchased through Schwab's Mutual Fund OneSource service (and certain other funds with no transaction fees) and held for 90 days or less.)") [bold added]
I transferred OEFs to Fidelity a few times and each time I ask Fidelity whether they would charge an STTR if I sold within 60 days of transfer. Each time they tell me "No" but they have not been able to show me a rule to that effect I could read. I write down the name of the rep. I checked on the occasions where I sold and they did not charge me the fees.
I recently asked Schwab the same question, and the answer was "No" STTF. Then I asked if their STTF is on a FIFO basis. I wanted to make sure if I bought more shares at Schwab after, Schwab would use FIFO in applying STTF and not any cost basis method, especially in an IRA. (I think we had a thread dealing with FIFO vs cost basis method for STTF). The Rep said that makes sense but he needs to check and get back to me. Unless a rule is clearly laid out in writing for the situation we are dealing with, it is better to ask the Reps for a confirmation each time one encounters the situation. Of course, there is no guarantee that the Rep's words would be honored if their IT systems are not designed for your situation and the Rep does not override the system, unless the Rep is specifically assigned to your account.
When dealing with big companies, I would not even try to use logic or a derivation of their existing rules to your situation. Just ask for confirmation of what you want and if you have time and patience, then ask for a reconfirmation. It boils down to allocation of time and energy. Recently, Fidelity website did not allow me to place a trade and I called their tel line from my car. The Rep placed a trade and confirmed that there will not be a fees or commission. But I was charged a broker assisted fees. At some point we just say F it and move on.
Thankfully, investing in ETFs is lessening these frictions.

The income thing has been promoted for decades now. Two smart giants, Bogle and Buffett prefer the SP500, and rightly so.
The markets also changed since the 70s. Until that time, the best blue chip companies paid div as proof they had good business and healthy profits. The tech revolution changed all that. These new companies have been paying no to lower Div and invested their money in buying other companies and/or buybacks.
But, the income thing never stopped for decades while many who promoted it are selling their products and trying to convince you it's a superior method.
Remember, total returns include everything including all the distributions, and the only thing that counts, unless you care about risk which equals risk-adjusted returns.

Interesting article and the graphics in the article remind me of our MFO graphic:
Morgan Housel:

I think this is the most practical way to think about debt: As debt increases, you narrow the range of outcomes you can endure in life.

how-i-think-about-debt
Also this, from Matt Levine, regarding Debt and "Narrow Banking"

The traditional view of banks is that they have lots of money: They take deposits from their customers, giving them cheap funding that they then use to make corporate loans and mortgages and credit cards and everything else. [1] But when the actual bankers at Barclays think about how to fund their credit cards, they come up with ideas like “ask Blackstone for the money.” Blackstone has lots of money too, but its money comes not from bank depositors — who can withdraw their money at any time — but, in this case, from insurance customers, who have longer-term and more predictable liabilities. This makes Blackstone’s funding safer: Its customers are not going to ask for their money back all at once, the way that Barclays’ customers theoretically might (and the way that some banks’ customers actually have). Everyone knows this, which is why Barclays is subject to strict banking capital requirements, [2] making it expensive for it to do credit-card loans, while Blackstone is not, [3] making it cheaper for it to provide the money for those loans.
I mean, “cheaper” in some sense; Arroyo and Johnson add that “because non-banks have higher costs of funding, consumers and businesses may see loan rates rise.” The traditional view is that non-banks have higher costs of funding than banks: Blackstone’s insurance customers want to earn a juicy return on their investment in risky credit-card assets, while Barclays’ depositors are happy to get a return of 0% on their checking-account balances. It’s just that those cheap deposits are not actually so cheap anymore, when you take into account their risk, and the regulation designed to confine that risk. Barclays is in the traditional business of lulling depositors into lending it money at 0% so it can turn around and lend money to credit-card customers at 20%, but that trick no longer works as well as it used to.
One thing I wonder about is: If you were designing a financial system from scratch, in 2024, would you come up with banking? That central traditional trick of banks — that they fund themselves with safe short-term demand deposits, and use depositors’ money to invest in risky longer-term loans, with all of the run risk and regulatory supervision and It’s a Wonderful Life-ness that that involves — would you recreate that if you were starting over?

Banks-are-still-where-the-money-isn-t

From the Artisan statutory prospectus:

You may open a new account in a closed Fund only if that account meets the Fund’s other criteria (for example, minimum initial investment) and:
- you beneficially own shares of the closed Fund at the time of your application; or
- [various other exceptions]
A Fund may ask you to verify that you meet one of the guidelines above prior to permitting you to open a new account in a closed Fund. A Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. A Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these guidelines.
The Funds’ ability to impose the guidelines above with respect to accounts held by financial intermediaries may vary depending on the systems capabilities of those intermediaries, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those intermediaries.

https://artisan.onlineprospectus.net/Artisan/s000006495/index.php?open=artisan!5fcombined!5fpro.pdf&scr=mob6JHBNJTYNO
That sounds like you ought to be able to open a new ARTKX account (in the trad IRAs), unless Artisan decides to be petulant. The last paragraph seems to suggest that at some institutions at least it should be possible to open the new account. That may take some three way communication among you, the institution, and Artisan, and a fair amount of arm twisting. If you can't open the account at Institution A or B, you might transfer some trad IRA dollars to an Artisan IRA, open the account there, and then at your convenience transfer the IRA back to wherever you want it.
With PRWCX, the situation is similar though slightly different. There is an institutional share class TRAIX that you might consider. TRAIX has a $500K min, but that is lowered to $50K if one invests directly at T. Rowe Price and has $500K in assets there. (That could even include cash that you were planning to invest in Cap Ap in a Trad IRA.) Even at the $250K mark, T. Rowe Price opens up its closed funds to investors. See Summit Program.
https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/about/client-benefits/index.html
Since these benefits (lower I class share min, access to closed funds) are a feature of T. Rowe Price's Summit Program, I would guess that they require you to actually have investments at T. Rowe Price. That doesn't mean you couldn't transfer them out once you opened the account (whether PRWCX or TRAIX); just that you'd have to move money into TRP to be able to start the process.

@hank - I concur, there really wasn't much useful content in the article. The comments almost always provide a better understanding/education.

Thanks for the heads-up @Mark. As a recent convert from the old Kindle format, I’m not yet fully accustomed to reading the actual magazine as it appears online. Miss the easier readability of Kindle, but it didn’t include readers’ comments. Agree the comments re dividend paying stocks are interesting. And those for other stories as well. Often the comments argue against the authored piece. And, in this case, readers offer additional investments to consider.
-
There’s several stories this week touching on bonds and / or interest rates. I think that’s important to consider whether you own bonds or not. The manager of a GS muni bond fund (GSMIX) is interviewed. Found his take on credit interesting: ”The fund typically owns 15% in high-yield credit, but the portfolio weight can be as high as 30% in junk bonds if market conditions warrant … (Presently) high-yield comprises only 7% of holdings.” - Gosh, I’d like to hear more on what went into that call.

Hopefully, I can explain the situation and my objective.
I have retirement accounts and non-retirement accounts at two institutions. I set this up because I did not want to have all at one institution plus I was able to purchase funds at one that I could not at the other. These dual objectives remain, but as I will explain, two funds are in focus. The below four accounts are all retirement accounts and being that I no longer have earned income, I can no longer contribute to a retirement plan.
Institution A
I am not certain where the names of these accounts came from.
I have a “Rollover Brokerage Account”. I have no problem selling any fund that is currently in this account - $460k current value.
I have a “Roth IRA Brokerage Account” (converted to a Roth many years ago). In this account, I own Artisan International Value (ARTKX) and T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRWCX) - $501k current value.
Institution B
I am not certain where the names of these accounts came from.
I have a “Rollover IRA Account”. I have no problem selling any fund that is currently in this account - $535k current value.
I have a “Roth Conversion Account” (converted to a Roth many years ago). In this account, I own Artisan International Value (ARTKX) - $176k current value.
As I recall, I have kept some of these fund separate (pure) mainly for asset protection (right or wrong). I believe that the “Rollover IRA Account” in Institution A came from an IRA. I believe the “Rollover Brokerage Account” in Institution B also came from an IRA. I now have an umbrella policy for which the coverage exceeds the value of all my retirement accounts.
My objective is to buy more ARTKX and PRWCX and I can't do this in my “Roth IRA Brokerage Account” at institution A or in my “Roth Conversion Account” in institution B. I could purchase all equity TCAF (which would be fine) without any maneuvering, but that does not address the problem with ARTKX. Either ARTKX or PRWCX can be purchased at A or B and a purchase fee is a non-factor.
I do not see an obvious solution. Combining both Roth accounts does not do anything for me other than allow me to allocate between ARTKX and PRWCX. Combining Traditional IRA's does not do anything for me because I do not own ARTKX or PRWCX in either. I have to check if either of the “Rollover” accounts in A and B are Roth accounts. If so, that would be an answer, but I doubt either are as they do not contain the word “Roth”. That seems to leave a Roth conversion in A or B, which I do not want as I am in a 24% marginal and 18% effective tax bracket, and to purchase a good amount of ARTKX or PRWCX, I would have to Roth an amount that would even put me in a higher tax bracket.
Am I boxed out of purchasing more ARTKX and PRWCX?

You will only be charged a transaction fee when you buy a FundsNetwork TF fund, not when you sell one.
The charge wasn't a transaction fee.
Fidelity does not charge a fee when selling any mutual fund - even if there is one for purchasing - unless it is an NTF fund held for less than 60 days.
Bingo. Fidelity doesn't charge transaction fees upon sale; it charges short term redemption fees.
But isn't VWINX a TF fund, and thus exempt from the short term fee?
Not from Fidelity's perspective. It didn't collect a transaction fee when the shares were purchased.
Suppose you purchase shares of a fund NTF at Fidelity on Jan 3. Then on Jan 10, Fidelity changes the fund status to TF. Then when you sell your shares on Jan 11th, that sale will incur a short-term transaction fee. Even though the fund was listed as TF when you sold. You can't go by the current fund status.

At the time you purchase shares of a fund, those shares will be assigned either a TF, NTF or Load status. When you sell those shares, any applicable fees will be assessed based on the status assigned to the shares at the time of purchase.

https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/all-mutual-funds/fees
WABAC's shares of VWINX weren't assigned a status at the time of purchase because they weren't purchased at Fidelity. But when they came in they were tagged as not having been charged a fee, i.e. they were treated as NTF shares. And the reality is that they were purchased without a transaction fee anyway.
But they were (probably) purchased a long time ago. WABAC didn't tell us, so this is a surmise. So why did Fidelity charge a short-term fee?
Some brokerages restart the clock when shares are transferred in. Here are examples from a couple of Canadian brokerages:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/lhz2cp/td_mutual_funds_short_term_trading_fee_transfer/
Others waive the short term redemption fee altogether. TIAA writes: "Short-term redemption fee: $50 minimum for shares held less than three months (waived for shares transferred from another brokerage firm or financial institution)"
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/commissions_and_fees.pdf
I'm surmising again, but it sounds like the shares were sold at Fidelity shortly after transferring them in. If that's what happened, then there's no need to transfer the remaining shares "to someplace more hospitable"; just wait out the 60 days at Fidelity.
Definitely check with Fidelity on why the short term fee was charged. I'm just guessing here, and as lawyers would say, "assuming facts not in evidence."

New drug: EPRT, Essential Properties Trust. HQ in Princeton.
https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/EPRT/opinion
Got a limit order in that I hope will execute soon.
I do not like seeing the 9.5% short of float. That's too high.
Once it's in the barn, I'll consider a trailing stop, but the stuff I own I intend to be long-term holdings. It does not always work out that way, of course.

03 May, '24:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-05-03/wall-street-week-05-03-2024

re: transfer fees
I call BS -- it's mostly done by sending some computer 1's and 0's between firms. The transfer out fee many companies charge is just the FU for leaving us fee. Let us pick your pocket as you leave. If I ever decide to do that again I might try and get the incoming company to pick up the fee for the new business. ADD: The last time I did a transfer I transferred everything but $5 before closing it. They never billed me the closure fee.

Glanced at Mark’s linked article. Didn’t take away much. But that’s Barron’s for you. Good at highlighting a number of different investment approaches and those who practice them to the point you get the sense you should buy one thing one week, sell it, and buy something else the next.
Personally, not into dividends per-se. As long as whatever I own goes up I’m happy.
Can’t help mentioning TRP’s PRFDX. When I began taking an active role in investing in the mid-90s it was considered possibly the best fund for everyday investors in Price’s much smaller stable. Brian Rogers, the manager in the 90s and beyond was a household name and was often a guest on Wall Street Week. Performance suffered for a few years after Rogers left. PRFDX’s younger brethren PRWCX took its place as perhaps the most touted TRP fund. (And David Gerioux became a household name.) But it looks like PRFDX has rebounded in recent years. And the +11.62% return going out 15 years is pretty impressive. Don’t own. Did for a while 25 years ago or so.

Well, I logged in to VG this morning and everything was back to normal. Thanks everyone for your replies.
In this mornings mail I received VGs amended Brokerage Account Agreement.
$25 commission for telephone trades.
$100 fee for account closure or transfer of account to another firm.
Plus several other changes and charges.
All effective June 1.
I'll have to study it more later.
I have been with VG for years. I wonder if other firms charge such fees?

Well. I didn't read the article, but it seems to me that all that is required is a fund that pays higher than a buck 35, and has out performed SPY over the typical M* periods. I'm too lazy to look up 24 month performance this Saturday morning. :).
From my current watch list, BBLU does the trick with a lower standard deviation and beta, and pays a buck 56 to boot. I'll bet a nickle there are others that beat on the dividend at least.

That's another trick … Have you looked at ETFs of CEFs?

Yes, there anre some ETFs of CEF’s .
CCEF appears to be quite risk averse. If I had to recommend one, that would be it - just based on my experience in two other Calimos funds. But it is only a couple months old. Another which @yogibearbull has mentioned before is Boaz Weinstein’s CEFS which I recently sold. For my own purposes the closed end fund (of closed end funds) noted earlier works better.
Weinstein uses leverage on that one (CEFS) in addition to the leverage inside the CEFs it holds. (”Double your pleasure.”) He’s been very successful at his activist approach. He’s been on Blackrock’s tail recently trying to force them to convert at least one of their CEFs to an OEF and “unlock” shareholder value. He shorted treasuries in recent years which helped the fund greatly. His is a great fund based on past performance and Weinstein’s reputation. Just depends on what you need.
*The near 5% fee on CEFS is an eye-popper. But the actual management fee is around 1%, with the rest coming from acquired fund fees and interest on leverage,

@sma3 - I can't argue that about SCHD at all. All I was trying to say originally is that it wasn't paying enough to suit my goals for that type of investment.
When I set out on this path (i.e. dividend growth investor) I was looking for stocks that had a track record of consistent, long-term dividend growth with the opportunity for capital appreciation as a secondary objective. The funds I scoured (many) all seemed to be paying yields that one could easily increase (often substantially) by simply investing in their top-5 or 10 picks. TIBIX was the fund I was using back then but after a few years of doing as advertised, building their income, it stagnated and eventually came to a halt. I wasn't smart enough to figure out why that happened and I wasn't sure any similar fund wouldn't do exactly the same.
As also previously mentioned, I get that it's not everyones cup of tea. I'll also admit that holding my current choices may constrain the capital appreciation aspect but the income continues to increase which was my primary objective.