If you are going to overweight a fund @Bobpa, that would be the one in my opinion. Having 50% in 3 balanced funds seems fine to me too, as long as you have some diversification in the other 50% of total. FWIW, in my self managed portfolio PRWCX is about 25% of total, but more like 10-12% of everything.

Major indexes closed the week flat/up. Closing lows were on Wednesday and intraday lows on Thursday morning. If you were watching the action on Thursday morning, Nasdaq Comp/ONEQ and Nasdaq-100/QQQ even touched the bear market territory for a few minutes (from their November highs). Reports are that Ukraine President said goodbyes to the EU leaders in a videoconference and Kiev and Ukraine may fall soon under Russian control.
From 1/3/22 (reset the date in the chart to 2022-01-04 if it defaults to 1-yr), https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=$SPX&compare=$COMPQ,$INDU,$TRAN,IWM&id=p85788118706

Unexpected rally, 25th Feb. You can be sure there will be big-time selling into this rally by the end of the day, eh? Watch and see...

"...For small funds, there certainly is an economy of scale in banding together. Fourteen of the twenty-four funds in the new trust have under $100M in assets. In fact, one of them is the M&P ETF MINN. Only one of the 24 funds is significantly above $1B in size - the $6.7B fund PTIAX. Notably absent from the trust is the $10B JENSX, even though the two other Jensen funds, JGQIX ($36.5M) and JNVIX ($204.9M) are series in the trust.
Hmmmmm. Coincidentally, I own PTIAX. I've not been entirely unhappy with performance. But I take exception to the way they automatically take my very real, green money every month, and pay dividends every month--- but then they play games with words: "total shares" or "vested" shares. After a few extended conversations, including with a "Supervisor," I finally asked point blank: "Is the REAL issue here the fact that you don't have enough people hired to do the job of recording these transactions in a TIMELY manner?"
There was a LONG silence from the other end, but I knew he was still there. Then I finally broke the tension and offered to say: "Thank you. THAT tells me a great deal."
What gripes me is that the automatic transfer was set up long ago, and continues, every month. PTIAX is taking it from my bank account. That money should not have to wait around to be recognized by machines as a share purchase. In fact, it's an AUTOMATIC, AUTOMATED process. And with the monthly dividend? That's THEM giving ME money. So, what's the hold-up? It's bullshit, that's what it is. I wonder whether my experience enters into this picture? Could Mairs and Power shareholders begin to experience the same bullshit, after the upcoming switch of Trustee?
@msf.

hot demand or skewed demand?
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20220225&instance_id=54275&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=83957&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/3237e587-1339-5972-997e-c699ff9fd430&

Food for thought. Thank you.

The trust is about to acquire three funds. And now it decides to more than double the size of its board. Coincidence or response to taking on more responsibilities? If the latter, shouldn't those creating the need have some say (even if only pro forma) in the process? Even if the timing of the board expansion is just a remarkable coincidence, it is significant enough to be noted in the proxy you received. Again, why the rush?
For small funds, there certainly is an economy of scale in banding together. Fourteen of the twenty-four funds in the new trust have under $100M in assets. In fact, one of them is the M&P ETF MINN. Only one of the 24 funds is significantly above $1B in size - the $6.7B fund PTIAX. Notably absent from the trust is the $10B JENSX, even though the two other Jensen funds, JGQIX ($36.5M) and JNVIX ($204.9M) are series in the trust.
Where would the $5.3B MPGFX be best served? That fund alone would increase the amount of assets in the trust by about 50%. And yet its shareholders get no say in the trustees. Because of timing.

The trust is about to acquire three funds. And now it decides to more than double the size of its board. Coincidence or response to taking on more responsibilities? If the latter, shouldn't those creating the need have some say (even if only pro forma) in the process? Even if the timing of the board expansion is just a remarkable coincidence, it is significant enough to be noted in the proxy you received. Again, why the rush?
For small funds, there certainly is an economy of scale in banding together. Fourteen of the twenty-four funds in the new trust have under $100M in assets. In fact, one of them is the M&P ETF MINN. Only one of the 24 funds is significantly above $1B in size - the $6.7B fund PTIAX. Notably absent from the trust is the $10B JENSX, even though the two other Jensen funds, JGQIX ($36.5M) and JNVIX ($204.9M) are series in the trust.
Where would the $5.3B MPGFX be best served? That fund alone would increase the amount of assets in the trust by about 50%. And yet its shareholders get no say in the trustees. Because of timing.

I do not think so. I am at about 25% in PRWCX and wish I had more there.

I am at about 20% for PRWCX across all accounts, 50% of the total portfolio in PRWCX, VWINX, and CIBFX.

I'm afraid I was a bit simplistic in saying that this was merely moving the funds from the Mairs and Powers Trust to a larger trust that already holds funds of various families.
While funds operate similarly whether organized as trusts or as corporations, it may be better to think in terms of the corporate model because people may be more familiar with that.
A corporation has shareholders who invest money, and a board of directors (analogous to a board of trustees) who have ultimate responsibility for the company and who answer to the shareholders. In order to run a conventional company, a board hires and oversees corporate officers. In the case of a fund (or series of funds), a board similarly hires investment advisory firms while retaining responsibility for the fund(s).
See this thread for examples of what can happen when the board fails to carry out its oversight responsibilities:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/58326/infinity-q-capital-management-plans-to-return-500-million-to-mutual-fund-investors
The current M&P board has five trustees, four of whom are independent including the Chair. The independent trustees are paid between $85K and $100K depending upon responsibilities (e.g. the independent Chair receives $100K). That is to oversee 3 funds run by one advisory firm.
The new trust (Trust for Professional Managers) currently has three trustees, two of whom are independent; the Chair is not an independent trustee. The two independent trustees are projected to be paid between $94.5K and $97K of which $1800 (for each) will come from the three M&P funds combined. That is to oversee approximately 27 funds from several families run by several advisory firms.
As noted in the M&P proxy, the new trust will be adding four unnamed trustees. Well, unnamed in the M&P proxy. The new trust has its own proxy where the nominees are named. And shareholders of the three M&P funds being absorbed will not have a say. Only shareholders of funds in the trust as of February 7th get a vote.
The trustees of the current M&P trust all have at least $100K invested in each of the three M&P funds (except for one trustee who has not invested in one of the three funds). The trustees of the new trust have no investments in any of the 24 funds they oversee.
Will any of this make a difference? Probably not. Being barred from the vote on trustees who will more than double the size of the board doesn't matter, since retail investors' votes can't influence these elections anyway. (And the nominees are running unopposed.) The timing just doesn't feel right, though.
New M&P prospectus draft (April [] 2022), including SAI
Trust for Professional Managers (new trust) proxy to elect four additional trustees
----
Purely by luck, I ran across the fact that a couple of funds (SNOAX, SNWAX) recently left the new trust (Trust For Professional Managers). The management firm (Snow Capital Management) was acquired by Easterly, which you may recognize as James Alpha. Apparently Easterly wanted to move those funds into its own James Alpha Trust. In a sense, the opposite of what M&P is doing. Previously, James Alpha had moved its own funds out of the Saratoga Advantage Trust into its James Alpha Trust.
Worth noting (see 2nd link below) is that one sees the same rationale (cost savings) given, whether it is moving funds into a conglomerate-like trust (as with M&P) or spinning out a family into its own trust (as with James Alpha). The third link is the actual proxy for the James Alpha spinoff where one can read the rationales in detail. There the projected savings (16-21 basis points) was significant, as compared with one basis point for the M&P move.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418921005185/snowsupplement497e8-2021.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/924628/000158064221000599/jamesalpha425.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1829774/000158064221000287/jaftn14a.htm

From Twain’s Huckleberry Finn - “To be, or not to be; that is the bare bodkin
That makes calamity of so long life.”
Dunno. Somebody smarter than me will need to answer your question. Nice going - up 25% on your value investment. ISTM valuations are steep, but that’s just gut feeling. I nibbled on DODEX putting in a small buy order at D&C today - a fund I’ve been thinking of adding. Fell over 3% today (good from my perspective).
Hope somebody else can answer your question. World events make investing feel unimportant at the moment …

Every fund's and ETF's assets are held in a trust
How about the TRP funds that reorganized out of Massachusetts business trusts into Maryland corporations on Oct 30, 2017? Here's the proxy their shareholders were given.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/773485/000079808617000024/mbtfiling.htm

Shareholders of each Fund are being asked to approve the redomiciliation and reorganization of their Fund (each, a “Reorganization”), currently organized as a sub-trust of a Massachusetts business trust, into a series of a newly formed Maryland corporation (each, a “Maryland Corporation,” and collectively, the “Maryland Corporations”) ... as follows ...
Existing Massachusetts Business Trust                        New Maryland Corporation
T. Rowe Price California Tax-Free Income Trust   T. Rowe Price State Tax-Free Funds, Inc.

I find his overall review of the market very useful. He is essentially trying to time the market, but with proprietary models and formulas that he has used to good effect for years. However he is not "All in or all out" and has a model ETF portfolio. Currently 23% cash 7 % in inverse SP 500 ETF 5% Gold

Try over $5 in SF.

Net trade didn't change sign in 2021. The US still exported more petroleum (including refined products) in 2021, but the surplus shrank. The government 2022 projection is for net importing. Note that in terms of crude oil, the US has "always" (at least every year this century) been a net importer.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51338

Futures for today looked bleak before opening. I'm guessing about 1% recovered after the opening.
I was thinking I'd be selling one of two value funds I hold at VG as it was getting close to my selling point of 25% profit. It has crossed this line a time or two, but I held out & the next day or two went back up.
Is this time different , with Mr Putin raising hell ?
Let me add , from viewing two other sites, it seems more than a few investors are sitting with a load of cash to deploy !
So it appears it's the smart money vs the d..... money ?!
Have a good one, Derf

When you read ERs, do you mentally add back waived fees, figuring that the shareholders pay the full freight one way or another? Or does the management company take the hit by reducing its fees, taking a lower profit?
The analogy is not perfect because sometimes waived fees can be clawed back, but not always.

Mairs & Power, Inc. (the “Adviser”) serves as the investment adviser ... The total costs of the Reorganizations are estimated to be $729,000, of which the Adviser is estimated to bear $511,500, Growth Fund (Target Fund and Acquiring Fund collectively), Balanced Fund (Target Fund and Acquiring Fund collectively) and Small Cap Fund (Target Fund and Acquiring Fund collectively) are estimated to bear $173,000, $31,000, and $13,500, respectively.

This morning:
SP500 VIX 36.8
Nasdaq-100 VXN 35.3 (so, less than VIX)
Oil OVX 50.5 (not much changed)

I post this weekly series elsewhere. I am posting it here in view of the unusual recent developments. If there is interest in this, I may post it here too from time to time. Sentiment indicators are contrary indicators.
For the week ending on 2/23/22, bearish remained the top sentiment (53.7%; very high; the highest since 4/11/13 when it was 54.5%) & neutral became the bottom sentiment (22.9%; low); bullish became the middle sentiment (23.4%; low). So, the neutral/fence-sitters turned bearish in large numbers. Bull-bear spread (-30.3%) was also the worse only in 2013. In the Survey week (Thursday-Wednesday), the Russia-Ukraine situation went from bad to the worst possible. Russia declared parts of Ukraine "independent" & sent military "peacekeepers" on Monday, & then the war erupted on Wednesday night (Central time). Besides a great human tragedy in the region, this geopolitical crisis will cause further runups in oil and grain prices (a lot of it may have already occurred in the futures markets). This is in addition to the high current inflation & the coming Fed tightening actions (QE-taper ongoing, rate hikes to start in March, balance sheet reduction from mid/late-2022). The debate whether the Fed should be "aggressive" or "moderate" with monetary tightening may have been resolved in the favor of "moderate" in view of the new developments this week.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/518/thread

As regards equity valuations, the Market should at some point revert back to historical norms.
P/E ratio is a simple metric, and some will dismiss it. But a -35% drop from here would not be that outrageous. If the Fed is busy tightening, can Powell still prop up equities? Punchbowl removal, Russian aggression, inflation, asset bubbles, etc.
The stage is set for a volatile 2022.
Current S&P 500 P/E Ratio: 24.1
(Feb 23, 2022)
Mean: 16.0
Median: 14.9