Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • The Week in Charts | Charlie Bilello
    The Week in Charts (09/24/23)
    The most important charts and themes in markets, including...
    00:00 Intro
    00:37 Webinar Next Week (9/26 @ 1pm EST)
    01:06 Are Higher Rates Here to Stay (FOMC Meeting)
    08:52 Good Times, Bad Times (Bonds)
    17:02 Rising Rates: Good or Bad for Corporations?
    22:24 Another Debt Milestone (National Debt)
    26:29 A Minor Pullback (Equity Markets)
    28:49 Would Stock Picking Be Easy if You Knew the Future?
    31:34 Instacart IPO
    36:40 "Soft Landing"
    41:38 Slowdown in Homebuilding
    44:02 Commercial Real Estate Reset
    46:41 Real Estate Boom & Bust in China
    48:24 India's Incredible Progress
    Video
    Blog
  • Vanguard Personal Advisor Services
    I've not used any financial adviser, WEG or other, personally. My situation is simple enough to handle myself; just maximize after-tax value subject to risk tolerance.
    Don't dig too deeply into the spreadsheet. It goes beyond obvious simplifications (such as uniform 5% and 7% rates of return and no changes in tax brackets between 2027 and 2042) to the point that conclusions may be suspect.
    For example: By assumption, the taxable account is spinning off no income other than sales from gain. If it were otherwise, that income would be used to offset some of the annual surplus/(shortfall). Okay, that's just another simplification.
    But it also means that no divs are being reinvested in the taxable account. Consequently the cost basis of the taxable account is decreasing each year as assets are sold off. Meanwhile, despite these selloffs, the total value of the taxable account is increasing (see "Non-qualified Inv. Accts.")
    Therefore, the ratio cost basis (going down) : total value (going up) is decreasing.
    Yet each year, the spreadsheet says that this ratio is fixed at 75%. It says that the cap gain on each asset is the same 25% of proceeds. This is impossible with a homogeneous portfolio (assumed, just as 5% uniform growth is assumed).
    Thus the spreadsheet understates the taxes owned due to cap gains (declining cost basis means greater gain and higher taxes).
    There's a more concerning issue. We see equity assets (or other assets generating cap gains) being sold for short term cash flow needs. That's not the way I manage my portfolio.
    Of course the spreadsheet is just "for illustration purposes only".
  • Robo-Advisor Evaluation
    @msf, Vanguard often written things in simple language. Many may interpret Vanguard being a plain old indexer and that is simply untrue (have equally number actively managed funds).
    As you posted the comparison between different PAS plans: Digital Advisor ($3K minimum), Personal Advisor ($50K minimum), Personal Advisor Select ($500K minimum), and Wealth Management ($5M minimum). All plans have active funds options.
    We chose Personal Advisor Select since we want need additional advice on personal financial planning and personal trust service. A dedicated advisor seems to work very effectively for us.
    As I stated earlier, Vanguard's proposal is far from being a cookie-cutter plan filled with index funds. It is built based on our risk tolerance, withdraw need with respect to time and from which tax-deferred accounts. The advisor constructed the proposal to include actively managed short and intermediate term investment grade bond funds (not just a total bond market index fund) and a total international bond index fund (we have little exposure to this asset class), plus others I mentioned above. Our advisor is well aware of the inverted yield curve and our bonds spread between short and intermediate term duration; no long duration bonds. In addition, we requested to shift more of bonds to my accounts and more stocks to my wife since they will be withdraw 5 years later.
    In the end, I believe the clients have the equal responsibility to work with their advisors in order to put together a solid asset allocation plan so to meet their future needs.
    Thank you for your "Dynamic Cash Flow" example, I am putting together a spreadsheet for our Roth conversion plan. Even though we have taken advantage of Roth 401(K) when it was available. Still we have sizable traditional IRAs to convert and the tax saving is substantial in our case.
  • Robo-Advisor Evaluation

    M* Rekenthaler mentioned exposure to international as one of the main drags on target-date retirement funds in a column this past summer.
    Just thought I'd try to show what a dragging portfolio Vanguard's recommended retired fund has been the last year or so. (If readable.)
    VTINX Target Income Composition 01/01/2023        Ticker   % portfolio
    Vanguard Total Bond Market II VTBIX 37.00%
    Vanguard Total Stock Market Institutional VSMPX 18.00%
    Vanguard Short-Term Inflation-Protected VTAPX 16.30%
    Vanguard Total International Bond II Index Fund VTILX 16.20%
    Vanguard Total International Stock Investor Shares VGTSX 12.50%
    VTINX Portfolio 100.00%
  • Just some macro-thoughts. Looking ahead.
    Thanks for update. I too am far overweight energy as it is such a small amount of the SP it is clearly a value play.
    I am still trying to decide when to buy long bonds. Many of the professional bond folks, even those who think we are in a prolonged bond bear market ( ie Jim Grant) are looking at that 50% haircut on 30 year Treasuries and thinking it has to have a pop.
    Ugly week and month for bonds. I just stay on the horse through it all. I'm better off now than when I first bought my delicious, wonderful junk bonds. But you're talking about IG and gummint stuff, eh? As I said elsewhere, I'm not expecting much except dividends, until into 2025. If the Fed decides to help out sooner, then great.
  • Vanguard Personal Advisor Services
    @msf
    Have you used the Schwab WEG group for anything?
    The example in the spreadsheet shows without the conversions their tax rate is 22% but in retirement with RMDS rises to 28% and eventually to 33%
    With the conversion they start out at 24 to 25% but keep it around 28%
    It is surprising that they only save $80,000 in lifetime taxes and it takes until 2041 for them to break even on taxes paid. They come out ahead estate wise by $500,000 and their heirs get the Roth tax free.
    So you are essentially paying your heirs tax bill for them.
  • Just some macro-thoughts. Looking ahead.
    Thanks for update. I too am far overweight energy as it is such a small amount of the SP it is clearly a value play.
    I am still trying to decide when to buy long bonds. Many of the professional bond folks, even those who think we are in a prolonged bond bear market ( ie Jim Grant) are looking at that 50% haircut on 30 year Treasuries and thinking it has to have a pop.
  • Robo-Advisor Evaluation
    Very useful discussion but I think the key is how they programmed their robos.
    If their models only look at historical data since the beginning of the Bond Bull Market, they may vastly under preform since the era of "free money" is over and bonds have almost had three years of negative returns in a row, a situation without historical precedence.
    Relying on the 60/40 portfolio with bond index funds and SP500 indexes here seems pretty risky to me, especially when you can get over 5% in 2 year treasuries. The stock/bond correlation is quite positive.
    Hopefully Vanguard is thinking out side of their "indexing Box". I always am concerned when you look at their decades long insistence that clients need significant international exposure. At some point that will be called for, but it has not worked for a long time.
  • Robo-Advisor Evaluation
    @Sven - very nice writeup specifically addressing some questions asked here.
    Curious that your advisor said VPMCX wasn't available. From the fund prospectus:
    The Fund is closed to new accounts for investors not enrolled in Vanguard Flagship Services® or Vanguard Personal Advisor Services®. Clients of these services may open new Fund accounts, investing up to $25,000 per Fund account per year as described below, in individual, joint, and/or personal trust registrations.
    My somewhat limited experience (all vicarious) with advisory services suggests that each provider slices and dices their offerings into so many different packages that it's difficult to tell one from another. Even the names confuse matters.
    Your service, that you're calling "Vanguard PAS Select", is formally called "Vanguard Personal Advisor Select", though it was previously called "Vanguard Personal Advisor Services". In 2019, Vanguard launched its pure robo version, Vanguard Digital Advisor. Then in 2022, Vanguard launched a hybrid version of that, called "Vanguard Personal Advisor". As of now, there is no specific offering called Vanguard Personal Advisor Services (which is what comes to my mind with "PAS").
    Here are the brochures and other disclosures in gory detail. I'm just beginning to compare and contrast them now. They seem to have buried within them all of the info in this thread plus more, but obviously much harder to extract than reading here.
    Personal Advisor Select: https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/vpabroc.pdf
    Digital Advisor (robo) / Personal Advisor (hybrid):
    https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/vanguard-digital-advice-brochure.pdf
    Here's Vanguard's advisory services comparison page:
    https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/compare-investment-advice#comparison-chart
    Disregarding trust services (available in Select), there seem to be three differentiators between the services. (Could be many more, I'm just starting a deeper dive.)
    1. Human financial advice/service - none for digital, team for Personal Advisor, dedicated individual for Select. Even this isn't clear, because the disclosure for Personal Advisor says that you get a dedicated individual once you reach $500K (the min for Select).
    2. Management discretion - Digital and Personal are nondiscretionary (VG makes all decisions); Select is nondiscretionary (you must approve financial plan before VG executes it).
    3. Price structure - Digital and Personal have gross fees (0.20%/0.25% and 0.35%/0.40% respectively for index/active portfolios) that are reduced by the Vanguard portion of ERs of the underlying holdings. Select charges 0.30% annually, with no reduction for the cost of underlying funds. (Over $5M AUM Select portfolios get a reduced fee.)
    Sven mentioned that his managed portfolio has no cash. That's likely typical but not mandatory. Select says that on Oct 21, it will begin assessing its advisory fee on the "recommended allocations to cash equivalents in the discretionary advice offer." Until then, cash investment allocations are "free".
    That cash is different from "spending cash". Select (and only Select) offers a "spending fund" (a MMF) for cash flows in and out of the managed portfolio. You can set upper and lower thresholds. Vanguard will move money in and out of the managed portfolio to keep within those thresholds. In the withdrawal phase, that's essentially your checking account.
    As I continue to dig into the disclosures, I'll make corrections if needed to the above.
  • Funds & Retirement Stories from Barron's
    Nice poignant quip from the afore mentioned Forsyth column:
    “With a nod to our Deadhead central bank chief, what a long, strange trip it’s been—and a bad trip for those who own the 1.25% Treasury bonds due on May 15, 2050, which closed on Thursday at a price of 48.186, more than half off their original price just over three years ago.”
  • Robo-Advisor Evaluation
    Recently we have started working with Vanguard PAS Select program and have a dedicated advisor. Our ultimate goal is to have a human advisor to oversee our finance if and when I go before my time, and my wife and kids will be well care for. For now this is a new experiment for us.
    After several rounds of discussion with my advisor, I have gained further insights on Vanguard capabilities that may to answer some of Hank’s and Old_Joe questions above.
    1. VCCM uses a Monte Carlo algorithm based on historical financial data with respect to inflation rates, interest rates, market returns of stocks and bonds. Nevertheless, these are backward looking data and may have challenges in predicting future returns. Thus the model can look at various scenarios and calculates for the probabilities of various future outcomes. Realistically, there is no model exists today. AI and machine learning will likely be use more in assisting the Monte Carlo simulation in the future. Right now, their algorithms are simply not robust enough to enable self-driving cars are reliably, for example.
    2. I asked my advisor the scenario question where it has higher than average 2% inflation rates for longer period, higher interest rates, and below average market return below, and how would VCCM model predicts and recommends the asset allocation. My advisor said that is a “good question” meaning he does not have the answer. But he said one needs to reconsider the withdrawal rates and monitor the portfolio to ensure that is still on track if this scenario plays out. That is a honest answer I can accept.
    3. In the proposed plan I requested to have no emerging market exposure, especially in passive investing. This eliminated Total international market index fund and geopolitical risk of 30% EM. Developed market is acceptable. So we will use developed market index ETF instead. In our self-managed accounts, we will use specific active managers outside Vanguard managed accounts.
    4. In Vanguard proposal plan, there is no cash position. There is only stocks and bonds for periodic rebalance purpose. Cash is considered a drag on portfolio performance. The plan is highly flexible that the advisors will work with clients to produce an asset allocation will meet the withdraw rate, portfolio return and volatility. Also the clients can choose all active and passive Vanguard funds aand ETFs available. One closed mutual fund, Capital Opportunity, was made available to PAS clients. Primecap, however, was not available (bummer). We chose 50:50 active:passive with 50% stocks and 50% bonds.
    5. Lots of customerization from client’s perspective, we added short- and intermediate-term corporate bonds in addition to the total bond market index. In the future, we may add their newly created Core or Core-plus active ETFs. Outside the managed accounts, we compliment these bonds with other active managed bonds - high yield, bank loans, and global bonds.
    Addition: PAS Select program provides few other services that we did not engage with the advisor in this early phase of working relationships. The human touch aspect is very good and their advisor phone number answer quickly.
  • How to see pre-2000s mutual fund documents?
    for many funds, the documents only go back to 2007 even if the fund is much older (example: Ariel Fund).
    That's not entirely correct. You may not be able to find them, but generally the SEC has fund docs going back to 1994 or 1995, including Ariel Fund docs. Back then it was the Ariel Growth Fund.
    Here's the folder with Ariel fund family filings. In any given folder, you'll want to open the NNNN-YY-NNNN-index.html file.
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/798365
    The only 1994 files are the annual and semi-annual reports in machine-readable format.
    The 1995 prospectus for the Ariel (Growth) Fund and the Ariel Appreciation Fund (including the Oct 1, 1995 supplement reopening the Growth fund) is here:
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/798365/0000950131-95-002729.txt
    There's also the 1995 prospectus for the Ariel Premier Bond Fund (including the Nov 6, 1995 supplement allowing investors to buy into institutional class shares when they buy in at the ground floor):
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/798365/0000950131-95-002376.txt
    What appears to be the earliest human-readable annual report (Sept 30, 1995) is here:
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/798365/0000950131-95-003393.txt
    Happy rummaging.
  • Robo-Advisor Evaluation
    [snip]
    @hank,
    Good questions!
    I'm not an expert on robo-advisors.
    I recently worked with Vanguard Personal Advisor Services (PAS)
    to create a financial plan as a trial exercise.
    My thoughts are below.
    - Are these robo’s aware that bonds recently experienced a 30 year bull market? That aberration affected not only bond returns. It also likely distorted other asset performance as well. Are robos capable of distinguishing between what worked over the last 30 years during falling interest rates and what might work over the next 2 or 3 decades?
    Vanguard PAS uses the Vanguard Capital Markets Model (VCMM) to forecast returns for stocks,
    bonds, short-term reserves as well as inflation rates.
    The VCCM uses a statistical analysis of historical data for interest rates, inflation,
    and other risk factors for global equities, fixed income, and commodity markets
    to generate forward-looking distributions of expected long-term returns.
    I don't know what models other robo-advisors are using nor which factors they consider.

    - Does the robo take into consideration the difference between very low / negative inflation over the preceding 2 or 3 decades and the likely inflation scenario going forward? Can it comprehend and factor in how that monumental sea change might turn return on different assets on their heads? Assets that outperformed over a period of low inflation may not be the best ones in a radically different economic backdrop.
    Please refer to my answer above.
    - Are these robos aware of the growing friction with China, Russia and how that may affect EM investments? Do they take into account the rise of populism around the world and growing political instability in many Western nations?
    I don't think robo-advisors' models factor in rising populism or frictions with China/Russia.
    - Would robos have correctly foreseen the tech revolution in say 1975 (excuse the oxymoron) and would they have recommended the best investments over the next quarter century? Can they properly assess the impact AI may / may not have on investments?
    Robo-advisors could not have predicted the tech revolution nor can they properly assess the impact of AI.
    - Can a robo correctly identify a bubble in an asset class and warn its clients to steer clear in a timely manner? (By definition, most humans cannot.) Or, might the robo have had you invested in Japan in the mid-90?
    Robo-advisors can not identify bubbles in an asset class beforehand.
    However, their models may underweight "overvalued" assets.

    [snip]
  • Robo-Advisor Evaluation
    @hank, I don't know what goes into the models that set portfolio construction. And likely all firms' algorithms are slightly different. No different than a Vanguard retirement fund compared to a TR Price or a Fidelity retirement fund. Do they adjust on all the micro circumstances you mentioned? I don't believe so, and I wouldn't want them to. They would be guessing and screwing up returns just like your average investor does per most investor return reports. The stability and convenience of a robo or a retirement fund is what you are paying for.
    I have the Schwab robo. I recently cut it by a third. It has not returned as much as my self-managed portfolio this year. It's biggest drawback has been it's heavy weighting in EM and foreign stocks and it's 12% cash holding that sits in a very low interest savings account, not a money market. That cash is and has always been the fee you pay for the Schwab robo. The12% cash allotment is making almost nothing for me compared to their 5%+ MM in my self-managed. It didn't matter as much in the past, but it certainly does now. I estimate this 12% cash has now become about a 0.6% fee to own the CS robo. That is a fairly large fee in my opinion.
  • Vanguard Admiral Minimums
    It's usually better (safer) to Read The Fine Manual (prospectus). Sample from VPMCX / VPMAX prospectus, Jan 25, 2008:
    MANDATORY CONVERSIONS TO INVESTOR SHARES
    If an account no longer meets the balance requirements for Admiral Shares, Vanguard may automatically convert the shares in the account to Investor Shares. A decline in the account balance because of market movement may result in such a conversion. Vanguard will notify the investor in writing before any mandatory conversion occurs.
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/752177/000093247108000022/chester_485b.txt
    The identical wording (though with more modern typeset) appears in the current prospectus.
    https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/p059.pdf?2210168823
    Note that Vanguard "may", not "will". This is consistent with my experience.
  • Funds & Retirement Stories from Barron's
    LINK 2
    FUNDS. Mid-cap growth JAENX follows the GARP strategy. Its portfolio includes 26% techs, 24% industrials (reshoring themes), healthcare, growth utilities (renewables, grid improvements). (By @lewisbraham at MFO) (Also, a strange placement near the end of the issue)
    EXTRA, FUNDS. With the NAMES-RULE, the SEC has cracked down on misleading fund names. Funds must invest 80% of the assets according to what is in their names, e.g. growth, value, big-data, green, AI, etc. When terms are vague, funds must define them along with applicable criteria in their prospectuses and those will become part of funds’ official investment policy. Fund firms with $1+ billion AUM will have 12 months to comply, smaller firms 18 months. Future flexibility will only be during fund launches when it takes some time to build portfolios, but beyond that, any deviations must be fixed within 90 days.
    INCOME. As bond-proxies, UTILITIES (XLU, the worst among 11 S&P sectors) have suffered as rates have risen. But rates are peaking, and utilities should have better prospects ahead, especially growth electric utilities, those involved in renewables and improving grid infrastructure. Mentioned are AEP, CNP, NI. (This previously regular column is now ON/OFF)
    ECONOMY. A new plan by the LA Senator CASSIDY and the ME Senator KING to fix SOCIAL SECURITY may work. It will leave the SSA Trust Fund (really, an IOU) alone, but would BORROW $1.5 trillion over 5 years to invest in STOCK index funds. The total US stock market-cap is $43.4 trillion, so this inflow shouldn’t cause much disruption (but don’t underestimate the impact of the inflow of $300 billion/yr. That would be almost double of the US IPOs in a best/hot year like 2021) (Also not mentioned is the increase in the US debt, but what is another $1.5 trillion added to $33 trillion?). This stock investment may cover 75% of the SSA shortfall with the rest coming from COST-CUTTING via increasing the FRA (well, this is the US, not France), raising salary caps, adding means test for higher income earners (so, they pay max into the SSA but may be limited in their SSA benefits). (No mention of how/if this $1.5 trillion would be repaid, but keep in mind that Social Security is a mandatory obligation of the government) (By guest author Allan Sloan)
    Dave GOODSELL, Natixis Center for Investor Insights. Most Americans aren’t prepared for RETIREMENT and may be overly optimistic. For many, 2022 was a year when reality hit (with bad stock and bond markets). Financial advisors have been suggesting that fixed-income now has generational opportunities, yet the pain isn’t over for many sectors of fixed-income. Allocation 60-40 makes good sense now. SOCIAL SECURITY may cover only 35-40% of retirement needs, and many Americans would have difficult time covering the rest from their portfolios. LONGEVITY is an underestimated risk, higher than what investors perceive in surveys (#1-volatility, #2-risk of loss).
    RETIREMENT. A government SHUTDOWN (federal FY24 starts October 1) won’t disrupt the monthly SSA payments (as that is mandatory spending), but other SSA services would be affected. The announcement of COLA (est +3.2%) would be delayed (without the BLS CPI data). We went through the debt-ceiling fiasco earlier this year, and now this.
  • Robo-Advisor Evaluation
    ”Something there is that doesn’t love a wall robo … “
    Having never played around with any of these sophisticated tools, I’m curious how the rankings or relative performance numbers are arrived at? Granted, either a robo or real life advisor should be able to suggest risk adjusted portfolios based on age, time horizon, investor’s situation, etc. Where I’d have more trouble entrusting my allocation to a robo is within the larger macro picture.
    - Are these robo’s aware that bonds recently experienced a 30 year bull market? That aberration affected not only bond returns. It also likely distorted other asset performance as well. Are robos capable of distinguishing between what worked over the last 30 years during falling interest rates and what might work over the next 2 or 3 decades?
    - Does the robo take into consideration the difference between very low / negative inflation over the preceding 2 or 3 decades and the likely inflation scenario going forward? Can it comprehend and factor in how that monumental sea change might turn return on different assets on their heads? Assets that outperformed over a period of low inflation may not be the best ones in a radically different economic backdrop.
    - Are these robos aware of the growing friction with China, Russia and how that may affect EM investments? Do they take into account the rise of populism around the world and growing political instability in many Western nations?
    - Would robos have correctly foreseen the tech revolution in say 1975 (excuse the oxymoron) and would they have recommended the best investments over the next quarter century? Can they properly assess the impact AI may / may not have on investments?
    - Can a robo correctly identify a bubble in an asset class and warn its clients to steer clear in a timely manner? (By definition, most humans cannot.) Or, might the robo have had you invested in Japan in the mid-90?
    The above considerations extend far beyond basic issues of age, time horizon, risk tolerance. And they’re not necessarily resolved by examining charts of various investments over the past 30 years. Those who correctly analyze at least some of these real world questions and make responsible investment choices going forward should have an advantage over robos - as I understand them.
    @MikeM has commented in the past that he runs both his own portfolio and one generated by Schwab’s robo adviser. So, his experiences would shed some light on these questions. Please understand my comments are offered as food for thought only. I have no experience using robos and am not a qualified investment advisor. I make no claims in either regard.
    Possibly, a more appropriate reference to the same poem I began with (Frost’s Mending Wall) applies to myself here: “He moves in darkness, as it seems to me …” :)
  • TCIFX TCAPX TCAMX-T Rowe Price Capital Appreciation & Income Fund Inc
    There's a difference between complexity and transparency. Transparency calls for, at a minimum, the availability of information. Complexity impedes transparency (if something is there but hard to find, it's less transparent). But the alternative, not providing that information, is worse.
    "Internally cross-linked mumbo-jumbo" may be referring to all the links that one finds in filings such as 485 forms (statutory prospectus/SAI). Frequent visitors to the site get to know that the first link is the document itself, and the other links are legal attachments. Perhaps a navigation guide from the SEC would help.
    Following the second link in the 485 filing, one gets to an agreement between T. Rowe Price Associates (the fund adviser, responsible to the fund for all services) and T Rowe Price Investment Management (the subadviser, responsible to TRP Associates for managing the fund portfolio). These are two separate corporations. The document spells out their rights and obligations; it also includes a limit on subadviser fees.
    Does anyone care about this? Probably not, except for the bean counters and the lawyers. But transparency demands it be made available. So it given as an attachment that is "cross-linked".
    The gist also show up in the statutory prospectus itself. for each TRP fund with this arrangement. For example, on p. 9 of the PRWCX prospectus (from the TRP website), is:
    T. Rowe Price [Associates] entered into a subadvisory agreement with Price Investment Management under which Price Investment Management is authorized to trade securities and make discretionary investment and voting decisions with respect to all or a portion of the fund’s portfolio. Price Investment Management is an SEC-registered investment adviser that provides investment management services to individual and institutional investors and sponsors; and serves as adviser and subadviser to registered investment companies, institutional separate accounts, and common trust funds. Price Investment Management is a subsidiary of T. Rowe Price
    That tells investors who the players are and what they do without getting into the legal "mumbo-jumbo". But does the average investor care about even this much? The SEC doesn't think so. That's why it offers funds the option of providing stripped down (IMHO fairly useless) summary prospectuses. If this simplified, non-cross-referenced doc isn't there, blame the fund sponsor, not the SEC. (Until a fund goes live, there doesn't seem to be much point in a fund expending time and effort composing a summary prospectus.)
    The SEC site even makes it easy to find these documents with a "Summary Prospectuses" search button.
    Getting back to the OP ...
    The tickers for the fund are PRCFX (investor shares) and PRCHX (I shares). Dates have not changed much between the original prospectus filed (7/17/23) and the current filing (9/22/23). They both give an effective date for the prospectus of October 1, 2023. The original filing gives a probably public offering date of November 28, 2023. This has been delayed in the new filing to November 29, 2023.
    These filings for T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation and Income Fund are separate from the Capital Appreciation & Income Fund from a few years ago (with the old tickers TCIFX, etc.). That fund would have included an Advisor share class that is missing from the 2023 version. More important is that the co-manager of that older fund was Paul M. Massaro; the current filing names Farris G. Shuggi co-manager.
    Here are the filings for the earlier version of the fund:
    https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=S000059017&action=getcompany&scd=filings
    The Summary Prospectuses button even pulls up a couple of summary prospectuses for the older version.
    Capital Appreciation & Income Fund ceased operation in mid 2019.
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1689311/999999999719005819/filename1.pdf
  • Vanguard Core Bond & Core-Plus Bond ETFs in registration
    From the news release:
    "Vanguard’s track record remains unparalleled — 95% of Vanguard active bond funds
    outperformed their peer group averages over the past 10 years ending June 30, 2023¹."

    ¹ For the ten-year period ended June 30, 2023, 42 of 44 Vanguard active bond funds
    outperformed their peer group averages; results will vary for other time periods.
    Only funds with a minimum ten-year history were included in the comparisons.
  • FPA U.S. Core Equity Fund will be liquidated
    FPPFX generated bottom decile 10-year and 15-year trailing returns in the large-cap growth category¹.
    It currently has only $58.6 Mil in assets.
    ¹ FPPFX was previously categorized as mid-cap growth or large-cap blend according to M*.