PACLX adds a 12b-1 fee of 0.25%.

Thanks. Dumb idea, according to yours truly.

PACLX adds a 12b-1 fee of 0.25%.

What lucky person gets to buy PACLX share class?

I can't find the difference between PACLX and PRWCX... ?????

The ER for PRWCX is 0.71 and for PACLX it is 0.97.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/prwcx/quote

...But WHY?

@FD1000 - The reference to UTG is that it is a utilities fund and the manager of PRWCX had recently mentioned that he was favorably inclined to utilities and adding to them in his portfolio. It was in no way, shape or form a comparison of the two funds. But I'm guessing that an astute investor such as yourself knew that and was trying to use the statement to somehow justify your post. Get it together.

I get it but
1) As I said already the site shows utilities at 5.5% as of As of 4/30/2024(not long ago). When it gets to 15-20% let's talk, after all, if utilities are such a great bargain, Giroux as one of the best, would load up.
2) UTG is leveraged, do you think PRWCX uses leveraged?
3) Is your intention to follow PRWCX and do your own categories and timing?

What lucky person gets to buy PACLX share class?

I can't find the difference between PACLX and PRWCX... ?????

The ER for PRWCX is 0.71 and for PACLX it is 0.97.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/prwcx/quote

@FD1000 - The reference to UTG is that it is a utilities fund and the manager of PRWCX had recently mentioned that he was favorably inclined to utilities and adding to them in his portfolio. It was in no way, shape or form a comparison of the two funds. But I'm guessing that an astute investor such as yourself knew that and was trying to use the statement to somehow justify your post. Get it together.

"30% in Tech"...according to PRWCX site (link), it's only about 15%
"+3.63% YTD would translate into something close to a 10-11% annual return if it continues" 3.63 / 5 months * 12 months = 8.7%
"Don't look now but a utilities fund I follow (UTG) is up 6.5% over the last 3 weeks."
What is the correlation between UTG to PRWCX. UTG is a leveraged utility CEF fund, while PRWCX is a flexible allocation fund with 5.5% in utilities per the site above.
BTW, YTD UTG made 7%, Google made 25%, PRWCX has more tech than utilities.

I like PVCMX. Lets look at the entire picture since 5/1/2019: M* 5 star fund.
PVCMX CAGR 7.44% VIOO 7.86%
PVMCX MDraw -6.45% VIOO -42.37%
PVCMX SD 5.85% VIOO 26.92%
PVCMX Sharpe .86 VIOO .20
PVCMX Ulcer 1.28 VIOO 13.87
PVCMX achieved comparable upside with substantially less volatility and downside.
IJS metrics is similar to VIOO with less CAGR than PVCMX.
Read David's MFO review:
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2019/07/launch-alert-palm-valley-capital-fund-pvcmx/
Also see 9/2020 MFO update.
I am amazed adults cannot understand there is a different tool for different objectives.
Every person has a right to their own objective with their own tool with their own money.
There is no right or wrong.

To revert to the title fund of this thread, below is the fund's performance, taken from its quarterly reports, which are available its website
https://www.palmvalleycapital.com/fundcommentary
and are separate from Cinnamond's occasional other comments
https://www.palmvalleycapital.com/commentary.
The fund commentaries report overall return, its cash percentage, the performance of its equities and the performance of the two small cap benchmarks it uses. In the five years since inception it has underperformed its benchmarks by less than its expense ratio, while providing a smoother ride. One might consider 20% of the fund as part of one's small cap apportionment and 80% as part of one's (attached, so not liquid) cash apportionment.

PVCMX's  PVCMX's  PVCMX's  S&P SmCap   M* SmCap
Overall  Percent  Equity   600 Index   Tot Retn
Quarter   Return   Cash     Return   Return      Index
-------   -------  -------  -------  ---------   --------
2019 Q2    0.70%   91.8%    Absent     -1.93%      -1.35%
2019 Q3    0.50    92.9     > BMks     -0.20       -1.81
2019 Q4    0.22    92.4     Absent      8.20        8.67
2020 Q1    0.79    52.0     Absent    -32.65      -31.61
2020 Q2   10.74    72.5     27.3%      21.94       25.47
2020 Q3    0.89    70       ~=BMks      3.17        4.90
2020 Q4    5.78    Absent   22.14%     31.27       29.29
2021 Q1    3.60    80       19.10      18.23       11.62
2021 Q2    1.16    81.4      6.94       4.50        4.23
2021 Q3   -1.06    79.8     -3.40      -2.85       -3.67
2021 Q4    0.04    79        1.34       5.59        3.72
2022 Q1    1.94    80       10.85      -5.64       -6.18
2022 Q2   -0.74    75.8     -3.22     -14.13      -16.44
2022 Q3   -1.83    76.6     -8.66      -5.20       -3.75
2022 Q4    3.86    78.9     15.36       9.19        8.05
2023 Q1    3.01    79       12.2        2.57        4.90
2023 Q2    1.62    82        4.78       3.38        5.60
2023 Q3    0.56    81       -0.78      -4.93       -4.56
2023 Q4    4.00    77.7     14.25      15.12       14.07
2024 Q1    1.04    81.9      2.11       2.46        5.69
Since
Inception  7.55                         8.47        8.31
(04/30/19)

ICI Fact Book, 2024
The new 2024 ICI Factbook is now available. Both the full PDF (long) & separate chapter PDFs are available; downloadable Excel files for each chapter are also available.
#ICI #MutualFunds #OEFs #ETFs #CEFs #TDFs #529s #401k #403b #IRAs
Quick Facts Guide https://www.icifactbook.org/pdf/2024-factbook-quick-facts-guide.pdf
Fact Book Website www.icifactbook.org/
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1490/thread

@FD1000,
1) I questioned information you provided and raised concerns about accuracy, relevance, and endless repetition.
After all, isn't this a site to discuss investing information?
I did not attack you personally.
2) I do have two different user names for investing sites. What's wrong with this?
The relationship between these two accounts can be readily ascertained by people who are curious.
Just because you have the same user name on a number of sites doesn't mean
everyone should follow your lead!
You evaded many points brought to your attention earlier in this thread.
Hopefully, you are receptive to constructive criticism and use this opportunity to meaningfully
improve the quality of your content and become a valued contributor to this wonderful community.
This is my final post in the thread pertaining to this topic.

Observant

The quote above was included in a post you made approximately 2 hours ago on another board.
This highlights just how repetitive your posts can be!
A respondent replied: "Pretty easy to call that. When you are down 10% and pop 2%.
It will work until it doesn't. You are only guessing."
It appears the respondent didn't find this information to be very insightful or beneficial.
That's my view as well.
https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/50337

Observant,
You are funny, you posted that I look in the rearview mirror. I proved you wrong. If you want more proof I can post more.
It seems that you think that the quote "you are down 10% and pop 2%" is a good response. If it is, how can you explain the fact that the SP500 is less than 0.5% from the all-time high?
Yes, it is repetitive, and I have said it in several sites many times since 2010.
BTW, 2 observations:
1) I never mentioned or attacked you in any way. You are the one who started it.
2) Why are you using different names on different sites?

TIAA/CREF VAs are also supported,
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/631/tiaa-cref-vas-testfol-io

The Week in Charts (05/24/24)
The most important charts and themes in markets, including...
00:00 Intro
00:14 Topics
00:42 The AI Show Goes On
09:01 Booming Utilities?
11:12 Housing Market Gridlock
17:35 Jamie Dimon on Credit Spreads & Buybacks
19:43 Roaring Kitty Says Goodbye
21:40 Trouble at Target
23:25 A Great Start
Video

The quote above was included in a post you made approximately 2 hours ago on another board.
This highlights just how repetitive your posts can be!
A respondent replied: "Pretty easy to call that. When you are down 10% and pop 2%.
It will work until it doesn't. You are only guessing."
It appears the respondent didn't find this information to be very insightful or beneficial.
That's my view as well.
https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/50337

Observant,
Let's just look at one thing "Looking in the investment rear-view mirror, this "analysis" is not very insightful or beneficial."
FD: there were many examples in the past, below is just one
This is what I said on Nov 1 2023 (big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/43353).
Quote "Momo looks good in the last several days. All = a buy before closing."
"You can just play it simple: no diversification, no predictions, no narrow range funds, looks like tilting LC growth is here to stay which = SPY/VOO or you can gamble and use some QQQ."
Now, look at the chart (https://schrts.co/GBZPhZKw)

@MrRuffles +1 Arnold proudly proclaimed , " You can pay me now or you can pay me later !"

I've viewed the results of a study which indicated stock markets in more democratic countries
produced higher long-term returns. Although I didn't delve into the details of this study,
it seems logical there would be considerable divergence between the least / most democratic nations.
FRDM has existed for only 5 years but it has trounced EEM during this short time period.
I believe much of the fund's performance can be attributed to excluding China.
Link

Car manufacturers’ maintenance schedules generally have a specific time or mileage interval for oil changes. My car specifically says to change the oil after every 10k miles or 1 year, whichever comes first, for normal driving (and also requires a specific grade of synthetic oil). It’s cheap insurance, particularly while I’m still under warranty.
Many oil change and car service places (particularly stealerships) put a lower mileage interval on their next service stickers than what the manufacturer prescribes. It’s unnecessary and a form of service churn.

May 25 Episode:

Perth Tolle created the Life + LIberty Indexes on the theory that democracy pays. Her Freedom 100 Emerging Markets Index is proof, trouncing its autocracy-heavy benchmark in its first five years.