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.
By virtue of of its 44% equity allocation one could think this is “ moderately conservative “ allocation fund as it is classified. But with almost 33 % of its equity in tech it sounds like it’s chasing tech returns. Lots of mag 7. A wolf in sheep’s clothing?
larryB, 33% of equity sounds high at first. But as a % of Net Assets, Info TECH makes up 14% of the portfolio, followed by healthcare at 6.5%.
Makes it sound more palatable to me.
Portfolio $400.09 million Total Net Assets as of 12/31/2025 Domestic Bonds 51.36% Domestic Stock 41.64% Cash 4.42% Foreign Stock 1.24% Foreign Bonds 1.04% Convertibles 0.25% Preferred Stock 0.19% Options -0.13%
As a percentage of Total Net Assets As of 12/31/2025 Information Technology 13.78% Health Care 6.51% Financials 4.70% Utilities 4.06% Consumer Discretionary 4.01% Industrials & Business Services 3.79% Communication Services 3.70% Energy 1.50% Consumer Staples 0.83% Real Estate 0.25%
@JD_co. I know that. But relative to its moderately conservative competitors it’s grossly overweight tech. Which may make it great until it doesn’t. But for those who don’t look under the hood, they might not realize what they are investing in.
You bring up a good point. I recently researched allocation funds (primarily Global Moderate Allocation funds). I discovered two or three funds—I don't recall the specific funds—with fine mid-term and/or long-term performance along with several other good characteristics. These funds had six or all seven of the Magnificent 7 stocks within their top ten positions. The funds lacked the diversification that I was seeking and may be susceptible to sizable losses if markets turn sharply against the Magnificent 7.
no doubt its an allocation fund drawing on excellent work already being done elsewhere in TRP funds with more focus. the downside ? despite its small AUM, it cannot put money to work in better small prospects (i.e., smallcap equity) because there will be no research effort in the area arising from prwcx forced to play in largecaps.
Grossly overweight? Holding 14% as opposed to just under 10% isn't going to scare many folks off. "Moderately" conservative gives a little leeway on allocations. The SD of this fund seems ok thus far.
With a 36% turnover ratio, these allocations will not remain static.
Top 10 Holdings (12/31/2025) Data as of: 12/31/2025
Name % of Fund Microsoft 3.16% NVIDIA 3.10% Apple 3.08% Alphabet Class A 2.36% Amazon.com 2.14% Meta Platforms 1.34% JPMorgan Chase 1.00%
I paired PRCFX with INPAX for this "bucket", and INPAX has 9% Tech. It's fine.
@Observant1. That’s how I saw it too. I was interested in PRCFX for its pedigree and people but my interpretation was that it was taking more risk than I was comfortable with in this space.
I own both PRWCX and PRCFX. Mistake? I put money into PRCFX because it holds more bonds than stocks. Monthly dividends, too. On a daily basis, it seems to me to behave like a more tame PRWCX.
We track PRCFX since inception and it does confirmed @Crash’s conclusion. Also there is no diversification benefit from the Mag 7 stocks exposure.
As i have posted on this board previously, other asset classes including developed and emerging markets in both stocks and bonds offer more compelling values, while reducing risk. Increased oversea exposure paid off nicely in 2025 and we are grateful. We also learned not heavily invested in Mag 7 still worked out okay. There is nothing wrong holding dull value funds.
If Vanguard forecast is correct, US stock returns will be lower (3-5%) than those of historical averages while bonds are returning in comparable range to stocks. Not great but they are nevertheless positive. Fees and expense ratio will become even more important consideration.
As the world is changing rapidly, the political stability (not including their currencies) of many foreign countries have improved while US has worsen! As investors, we would like to invest where there is a better likelihood of “return on of my money, and not return of on my money”.
There is still opportunities to reallocate your funds. Diversified and inexpensive index funds would be a good starting point for stocks.
As the world is changing rapidly, the political stability (not including their currencies) of many foreign countries have improved while US has worsen! As investors, we would like to invest where there is a better likelihood of “return on my money, and not return of my money”.
There is still opportunities to reallocate your funds. Diversified and inexpensive index funds would be a good starting point for stocks.
****************************************************************** As investors, we would like to invest where there is a better likelihood of “return on my money, and not return of my money”.
Rings a bell! Our David Sherman (CrossingBridge) puts it the other way 'round: He runs his funds with the idea that return of capital is more important than return on capital; if the principal is diminished or lost entirely, the approach taken in order to make more money is worthless in that case. Every day, I sit and wish I could get into his funds without transaction fees at Schwab. ********* Anyhow: I'm into EWS now. Singapore. A very concentrated ETF. And as mentioned before, also Panama and P.R. But they both use the dollar. Is that true diversification? (Panamanian balboa = $1.00.) In any case, they're serving me well. (BLX and FBP). Schwab grants the former an A rating, and the latter a B rating. For a brief moment, it rose to an A, as well.
It's tempting, on this Sunday afternoon, to throw some money into a fund mentioned in the Precious metals thread: GRHAX.
@crash, i made a mistake on my statement above (correction made). Capital preservation is #1 objective. BTW, i invest with D. Sherman funds as they have done well and minimize the risk. At Fidelity, they charge $49.95 for initial purchase. Additional purchases can be done for $5. Schwab has similar fee schedule. I use this approach to build a large position over.a year or so. Institutional shares of OEFs have lower expense ratio that pay for the transaction fee itself. I hold RSIIX for over 5 years.
Single country ETFs are inherently volatile due to the lack of sector and company diversification. If the top 10 holdings are over 50%, the fund is very concentrated. Panama is in frontier market i believe. The other thing to watch out for is the small daily trading volume (getting narrow spread between bid and ask prices). I prefer broadly diversified OEFs and ETFs (typical daily trading volume at 100K to several millions shares).
@Derf, we don’t own any PRCFX since we have PRWCX. For last several years, we have been reducing PRWCX as part of our risk reduction. US and foreign bonds are more attractive at this point.
Quite honestly i am not qualified to advise you on the amount of risk you should assume. Think a financial advisor may serve you better.
@Derf PRFCX is not precisely a clone of the equity sleeve in PRWCX. There's surely enough similarity to think of them in the same ballpark. (But I'm looking at the portfolios dated 30 Nov, '25 at Morningstar.) You're 5 years ahead of me, not that it matters at this stage.
I've been in PRWCX since 2014 and can't imagine giving it up. 2025 was its worst performance year, ever: 55th percentile among peers. I note a curious item listed in the PRCFX portfolio: an aggregate of a pile of different stuff, and as of 30 Nov, its size jumped by 2,225.99%. There must be a record somewhere of just which stocks are in that big un-labeled bag, eh? I suppose it's an indication that the size of the AUM has grown substantially.
I was attracted to PRCFX by its lead Portf. Mngr. and its YIELD. A rather hefty yield compared to most other balanced funds. I'm able to add new money to my portfolio just in dribs and drabs these days; a heftier yield which pays monthly makes growing my total easier, because it all gets reinvested, apart from the slug I remove each January. PRCFX is 13.43% of my total. I'm letting it ride. In a couple of years, I'll run into RMDs. The size of my taxable account will be growing quicker, then. I plan to move the lion's share of the RMDs just over there on the other side of the wall.
@Derf - you asked "This thread leads me to ask, what % of PRCFX should a 76 year old retired gent hold? Better yet what % of PRCFX do you hold?"
I can't answer your first question because we all do what seems and feels right to us. I can tell you that this 76-yr old investor holds a 2% position in his Roth, reinvests all dividends and adds on dips. As I sell off certain equity holdings in my Roth, I expect some of those funds will be added to PRCFX. Hard to argue with last year's TR and Giroux's long term record. I don't try to second guess his equity selections.
Morningstar has a list of The Best Balanced Funds and ETFs - Jan 2026
Gold T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation TRAIX American Funds Moderate Growth & Income RBAFX T. Rowe Price Balanced RBAIX Vanguard Wellington VWELX
Silver T. Rowe Price Spectrum Moderate Allocation TRPBX Vanguard Balanced Index VBINX American Funds American Balanced AMBFX Capital Group Core Balanced ETF CGBL
Looks like all funds here have about 60% equity and most of top rated funds have about 25-30% of that in tech stocks. So about 13-17% of total, similar to PRCFX.
Comments
Makes it sound more palatable to me.
Portfolio
$400.09 million
Total Net Assets as of 12/31/2025
Domestic Bonds 51.36%
Domestic Stock 41.64%
Cash 4.42%
Foreign Stock 1.24%
Foreign Bonds 1.04%
Convertibles 0.25%
Preferred Stock 0.19%
Options -0.13%
As a percentage of Total Net Assets
As of 12/31/2025
Information Technology 13.78%
Health Care 6.51%
Financials 4.70%
Utilities 4.06%
Consumer Discretionary 4.01%
Industrials & Business Services 3.79%
Communication Services 3.70%
Energy 1.50%
Consumer Staples 0.83%
Real Estate 0.25%
I recently researched allocation funds (primarily Global Moderate Allocation funds).
I discovered two or three funds—I don't recall the specific funds—with fine mid-term
and/or long-term performance along with several other good characteristics.
These funds had six or all seven of the Magnificent 7 stocks within their top ten positions.
The funds lacked the diversification that I was seeking and may be susceptible
to sizable losses if markets turn sharply against the Magnificent 7.
no doubt its an allocation fund drawing on excellent work already being done elsewhere in TRP funds with more focus. the downside ?
despite its small AUM, it cannot put money to work in better small prospects (i.e., smallcap equity) because there will be no research effort in the area arising from prwcx forced to play in largecaps.
With a 36% turnover ratio, these allocations will not remain static.
Top 10 Holdings (12/31/2025)
Data as of:
12/31/2025
Name % of Fund
Microsoft 3.16%
NVIDIA 3.10%
Apple 3.08%
Alphabet Class A 2.36%
Amazon.com 2.14%
Meta Platforms 1.34%
JPMorgan Chase 1.00%
I paired PRCFX with INPAX for this "bucket", and INPAX has 9% Tech. It's fine.
As i have posted on this board previously, other asset classes including developed and emerging markets in both stocks and bonds offer more compelling values, while reducing risk. Increased oversea exposure paid off nicely in 2025 and we are grateful. We also learned not heavily invested in Mag 7 still worked out okay. There is nothing wrong holding dull value funds.
If Vanguard forecast is correct, US stock returns will be lower (3-5%) than those of historical averages while bonds are returning in comparable range to stocks. Not great but they are nevertheless positive. Fees and expense ratio will become even more important consideration.
onof my money, and not returnofon my money”.There is still opportunities to reallocate your funds. Diversified and inexpensive index funds would be a good starting point for stocks.
As investors, we would like to invest where there is a better likelihood of “return on my money, and not return of my money”.
Rings a bell! Our David Sherman (CrossingBridge) puts it the other way 'round: He runs his funds with the idea that return of capital is more important than return on capital; if the principal is diminished or lost entirely, the approach taken in order to make more money is worthless in that case. Every day, I sit and wish I could get into his funds without transaction fees at Schwab.
*********
Anyhow: I'm into EWS now. Singapore. A very concentrated ETF. And as mentioned before, also Panama and P.R. But they both use the dollar. Is that true diversification? (Panamanian balboa = $1.00.) In any case, they're serving me well. (BLX and FBP). Schwab grants the former an A rating, and the latter a B rating. For a brief moment, it rose to an A, as well.
It's tempting, on this Sunday afternoon, to throw some money into a fund mentioned in the Precious metals thread: GRHAX.
Single country ETFs are inherently volatile due to the lack of sector and company diversification. If the top 10 holdings are over 50%, the fund is very concentrated. Panama is in frontier market i believe. The other thing to watch out for is the small daily trading volume (getting narrow spread between bid and ask prices). I prefer broadly diversified OEFs and ETFs (typical daily trading volume at 100K to several millions shares).
@Derf, we don’t own any PRCFX since we have PRWCX. For last several years, we have been reducing PRWCX as part of our risk reduction. US and foreign bonds are more attractive at this point.
Quite honestly i am not qualified to advise you on the amount of risk you should assume. Think a financial advisor may serve you better.
PRFCX is not precisely a clone of the equity sleeve in PRWCX. There's surely enough similarity to think of them in the same ballpark. (But I'm looking at the portfolios dated 30 Nov, '25 at Morningstar.) You're 5 years ahead of me, not that it matters at this stage.
I've been in PRWCX since 2014 and can't imagine giving it up. 2025 was its worst performance year, ever: 55th percentile among peers. I note a curious item listed in the PRCFX portfolio: an aggregate of a pile of different stuff, and as of 30 Nov, its size jumped by 2,225.99%. There must be a record somewhere of just which stocks are in that big un-labeled bag, eh? I suppose it's an indication that the size of the AUM has grown substantially.
I was attracted to PRCFX by its lead Portf. Mngr. and its YIELD. A rather hefty yield compared to most other balanced funds. I'm able to add new money to my portfolio just in dribs and drabs these days; a heftier yield which pays monthly makes growing my total easier, because it all gets reinvested, apart from the slug I remove each January. PRCFX is 13.43% of my total. I'm letting it ride. In a couple of years, I'll run into RMDs. The size of my taxable account will be growing quicker, then. I plan to move the lion's share of the RMDs just over there on the other side of the wall.
I can't answer your first question because we all do what seems and feels right to us. I can tell you that this 76-yr old investor holds a 2% position in his Roth, reinvests all dividends and adds on dips. As I sell off certain equity holdings in my Roth, I expect some of those funds will be added to PRCFX. Hard to argue with last year's TR and Giroux's long term record. I don't try to second guess his equity selections.
Gold
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation TRAIX
American Funds Moderate Growth & Income RBAFX
T. Rowe Price Balanced RBAIX
Vanguard Wellington VWELX
Silver
T. Rowe Price Spectrum Moderate Allocation TRPBX
Vanguard Balanced Index VBINX
American Funds American Balanced AMBFX
Capital Group Core Balanced ETF CGBL
Bronze
BlackRock Balanced MKCPX
JHancock Balanced SVBIX
Dodge & Cox Balanced DOXBX
MFS Total Return MTRIX
Fidelity Advisor FBAVX
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/best-balanced-funds
Gold
Symbol % Stock % Bond % Cash
TRAIX ~60-65% ~30-35% ~5%
RBAFX 68% 28% 4%
RBAIX ~65% ~35% <1%
VWELX 65% 34% 1%
Silver
Symbol % Stock % Bond % Cash
TRPBX 59% 28% 7%
VBINX 60% 40% 0%
AMBFX 66% 31% 3%
CGBL 63% 33% 4%
Bronze
Symbol % Stock % Bond % Cash
MKCPX ~60% ~40% <1%
SVBIX 57% 42% 1%
DOXBX 66% 32% 2%
MTRIX ~60% ~40% <1%
FBAVX 65% 35% 0%
Ticker % Tech (of Stock)
TRAIX ~37%
VWELX ~34%
RBAIX ~25%
RBAFX ~22%
Silver
Ticker % Tech (of Stock)
AMBFX ~31%
VBINX ~31%
CGBL ~28%
TRPBX ~25%
Bronze
Ticker % Tech (of Stock)
SVBIX ~28%
MKCPX ~26%
FBAVX ~22%
MTRIX ~14%
DOXBX ~8%
Looks like all funds here have about 60% equity and most of top rated funds have about 25-30% of that in tech stocks.
So about 13-17% of total, similar to PRCFX.