I too hold positions (much smaller than yours) in both PRWCX and OAKBX.

Both hold up extremely well in bear markets. Nothing wrong with holding 2 x similarly situated active funds -- consider it diversification of manager risk.

If you sold either one, what would you do with it? Its tough to find better risk-adjusted returns than these too.

Originally posted in thread: 218

When faced with this decision last year, I chose OAKBX.

When faced with this decision last year, a friend of mine chose PRWCX.

If you look at their portfolios closely, they are very different. But they are both excellent.

Why I chose PRWCX: It seemed a bit more conservative (my time frame was shorter than my friend's, who chose PRWCX); it was more traditional in its portfolio (60-30 stocks-bonds), while PRWCX has few traditional bonds (instead it has convertibles and other things); and I think OAKBX might be more tax efficient (my account was taxable, but my friend's was IRA). I'm not sure about that last reason...I seem just to have a recollection that that's what I thought about OAKBX.

What's good about PRWCX? It has a slightly better return history than OAKBX; it takes a bit more risk, I think, so it has a chance of doing better; its ER is lower (this is very big plus, right?!?) Also, as I recall, the returns vs. risk ratio was a bit better for PRWCX.

So they're both good. They're both different. It all depends on what you're looking for, what type of account you have, etc.

(P.S.....In my Roth I don't have hybrids, as another poster mentioned above....I prefer instead to do my balancing myself, so I have DODIX, as the poster suggested, in conjunction with DODGX, instead of the hybrid DODBX.)

Originally posted in thread: 218

In my post above, "Why I chose PRWCX" should be "Why I chose OAKBX." Yikes. I bet that was confusing to a few folks who read that post!

Originally posted in thread: 218

Hi,

Anyone know why OAKBX has such good tax efficiency for a hybrid fund, even over a 10 yr period? Is it due to the recent low interest rates?

Originally posted in thread: 218

interest, which helps a bit, but mostly the managers seem to pay attention to tax loss harvesting to offset gains. I don't recall paying attention to tax efficiency being mentioned in the prospectus, but it is so consistent the attention to tax matters is there whether they make much of it or not.

Call it an extra bonus which I appreciate as I hold it in both taxable and tax-sheltered.

Originally posted in thread: 218

A real toss up in my book and I love both vs doing sector indexing...

>Butt> following the " Happines is a back up apprach"
I'd keep both & B equally invested into
> Or If not as equally, one as back up
> What if Oakmark closes it? then what you going to do?
> They ( OAKBX & PRWCX) are so close, hard to say either way except...
> PRWCX changes in Mgmnt could tilt things to OAKBX in the future...
> As for OAKBX..MR.'s Taylor/McGregor/Studinski and rest of staff are upstanding customers of the Limo Co. I'm with and when I used to drive, they were very open to dicussing their Funds/Investment styles, etc. as well as providing good advice

1. OAKBX had a small loss yr in 2002, while PRWCX didn't but it was only about -2% by the end of the yr
2. Total % vs Total% over past 7 yrs>
OAKBX = 113% & 10 yr apy = 13.3 & Ranked #1
PRWCX = 120% butt > 10 yr apy = 12.5 > # 2
3. And Intersting picture> as of currently
( Using Lipper )

OAKBX = 60/38/3 (cash) while
PRWCX = 61/14/20 ( cash)

appears to be 2 slightly different approaches to the rest of this yr...? but neither are more than the other into equities...

Worse periods
Both took hits in 2002
Oakbx worse 3 mo was -9%
Prwcx was -8%, but recovered better by End of yr

Best:
Both 3 mo> about 13%> 2003 period

2000-2002 Bear mrkt..rtns
Oakbx = about 20% vs PRWCX = 22%
but, in 2001 = 18% = 10%
2002 = (-2% ) 0
Total = 36% vs 32%
$1k = $1,387 vs $1,342

Another competitor in the running & in my same type is Leuthold Funds..
I hold in them but it's first Balanced/Flex Fund did a hard close and opened a 2nd type for new money, but I just left the money in the closed fund (for now) and not invest in the 2nd one.. tosee how both do...

Discloseur
Yrs ago..being in the Limo business in Chicago
Oakmark is a Customer and following the " Chicago" way of Doing business, Our companies Investment portfolios invests into their funds as well as directly myself ( but neither is more heavily into them than other funds we own)

Originally posted in thread: 218

If I were you, I'd play on Oakmark's equity funds (say OAKMX) and use DODBX for ALL of my bonds. Every "expert," and my own experience, says that you can best allocate your own resources according to your needs by staying away from hybrids.

I was just getting ready to post a question about this topic. Does anyone have risk adjusted returns for their slice and dice portfilio that beat OAKBX or PRWCX?

Originally posted in thread: 218

OAKBX has a superb equity sleeve. I'm very happy with this fund even though (unfortunately) it's in a taxable account.

The drawback to hybrid funds is that you cannot keep the bonds in a tax-deferred account and the stocks in a taxable account!

But the advantage is that they tend to be stable and easy to live with - an emotional advantage. I have never once entertained the thought of selling OAKBX (and I've added to it many times)....I cannot say that about my other funds!

Originally posted in thread: 218

Both are good funds, but lately it's been like a game of musical chairs over at T. Rowe Price. Round and round then go. Who will be the manager of PRWCX tomorrow? Nobody knows.

Originally posted in thread: 218

I also have both funds, in approximately equal amounts, each just under 9 percent of portfolio.

I bought PRWCX several years ago, and hold it in both regular and Roth accounts. I'm a newcomer to OAKBX, because it was recently added to the options in my Hartford-managed 457 plan. I'd seen references to this fund in the M* bulletin boards, and when I saw it was available in the 457, I grabbed a bunch.

What's interesting is that if you compare the holdings of these two funds, there's very little overlap, and yet both have done well and offer comparatively low risk. (Which for me, approaching age 60, is an increasingly significant consideration.)

I don't know your age, goals, time span, or risk tolerance, etc. But I do think these two funds are sufficiently independent in terms of approach and holdings, to justify holding both. And, in my humble opinion, a 20-percent stake in these complementary moderate allocation funds is a smart stake, no matter what your age or timeline.

Originally posted in thread: 218

Somewhat different approaches with excellent results. If one doesn't continue down that path you've hedged your bet with the other.

Originally posted in thread: 218 <