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.

@BaluBalu - maybe this thread?

I track a few Mod Allocation funds, though I am mostly in PRWCX. Of these funds, PRWCX has underperformed all of them YTD, which is unusual. According to M* performance page, YTD it is 39 percentile which is the lowest in 10 years. The fund has received the most inflows in the last 12 months than during any other 12 month period in the last 10 years. The PM was out promoting his other new fund launches during this past year, and that may have resulted in PRWCX inflows too.
How has the fund been positioned YTD (causing it to underperform relative to its own history)?
(I ask this to see if I want to adjust my other allocations so I compensate for what PRWCX is doing to my portfolio, provided my conviction is different from the PM's relative to his allocation decreases and increases or if he is overallocated to something. He may decrease allocation to a position if it has grown to be too big but his conviction on that may not changed. So, not all his changes are an indication of his change in conviction.)
Thanks for your thoughts on PRWCX positioning.

+1.

"Rollover" in a/c title is just for information. There are no differences in "Rollover IRA A/C" and "IRA A/C". Many people want to keep their Rollover $s separate, but even they can add nonrollover $s to the so-called "Rollover IRA A/C".
Typically, "IRA" is "Traditional IRA", "Roth IRA" is just that.
Never encountered the term "Conversion Roth IRA A/C".
Account protection is complex stuff. 401k/403b are better protected, but IRAs also have good protection if the various sources of money can be identified; the state protection limits vary for contributed $s. But to avoid these headaches, many just keep all Rollover $s separate.

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

Think of Barron's article mentions of funds and/or stock as "for instance", but not comprehensive or the best or leading. In my take on this article (LINK), I noted the glaring omission of any ETFs.
"INCOME. Dividend strategies vary. OEFs LCEYX, VDIGX focus on dividend-growth, and INUTX on higher current dividends. (In the ETF space, dividend-growth VIG, higher current-income VYM, dividend-blend SCHD)"

@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?

Well. I sure haven't called anybody over the weekend. :). IIRC, the fees did show up as part of the online sale process; it's not like they were tacked on subsequently.
If I get real motivated I'll look at the transaction records to see how things were broken down. But not today.
I haven't actually sold VWINX out of the IRA yet. I'm hoping it will prosper from those rate cuts we keep hearing about. I do believe I have owned it since the 1990's.
There were a few other funds that were sold within about six-eight months of transferring the IRA from Vanguard to Fidelity.
At the present time DODGX, SEQUX, and VWIGX are in a taxable account at Fidelity after gathering them in from the respective fund companies to simplify things. I would just as soon not sell any of those at the present time.
I did miss a window to harvest a loss on SEQUX. Maybe it will reopen in the future. By that time everyone will likely be charging some sort of fee anyway.

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."

I received the notice about new fees in the post today. The $100 fee for closing an account is particularly puzzling. If someone has a non-Roth IRA when they reach a certain age they are required by law to take annual distributions. That's the R in RMD. After a number of years the Vanguard investor (or heirs) will have received all the money in the IRA account. Presumably the account will then be closed. But Vanguard is going to keep $100 of the final distribution for themselves? Can that be legal?
What about a non-retirement account? In the past I have redeemed all my shares in certain mutual funds (both Vanguard and not) and the account has remained open with no money in it. That has been the actual case at Vanguard for years for me. I never requested that the account be closed and so it wasn't. If I redeem all shares of a Vanguard fund that does have money invested in it and don't request that the account be closed I wonder if they will steal, er, I mean keep, $100 of my money. Why would anyone insist that an account be closed anyway? AND, they don't say that the fee will be charged. They say that it "may" be charged.

PRFDX. TRP Equity-Income. I bought-in primarily because my stake in PRWCX by itself was getting so large. Yes, this camper is a happy one, re: PRFDX's performance. I've owned it for a year or two. Quarterly dividends, but they are not shooting the lights out. It's the overall performance that makes me smile. Up YTD +6.79% in '24. (May 4.) It's currently the leader in my portfolio. (13.88% of portf.) Of course, longer-term numbers tell a deeper story.

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.

All are effective July 1, except for the IRA MLP filings. See thread:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/62244/our-service-is-terrible-but-we-ll-charge-you-100-to-transfer-your-account
Many firms charge closeout and/or transfer fees. Some charge fees for partial ACAT transfers, some only charge for full transfers.
For example Fidelity charges no fees. Merrill charges for full transfers and for closing out IRAs (but not a double fee), while it doesn't charge for partial transfers. Similarly, Schwab charges for a full transfer of assets, but not for partial transfers. Robinhood charges $100 for a full or partial transfer out. (Perhaps that's their idea of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor?)

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?

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.

That's another trick.
CEFs that have managed-distribution policies set an attractive distribution rate. But if that isn't supported by fund income, the difference is ROC - return of capital (i.e. your own money). ROCs aren't taxed on distribution but reduce the cost basis (thankfully, major brokers keep track of this), so when you sell, you end up paying higher tax.
ROCs are final only after the yearend, but the CEFs must report estimated ROC monthly; see April report for FOF. As FOF is a CEF of CEFs, ROCs can be from FOF or the underlying CEFs.
https://assets-prod.cohenandsteers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/29181236/FOF-Section-19-Notice-Apr-2024.pdf
Have you looked at ETFs of CEFs?
Edit/Add. Interesting that FOF doesn't disclose the ERs attributed to its underlying funds in the usual documents. Its reported fee of 0.95% looks misleading for a CEF of CEFs.