Like @Griffin, I am a longtime follower, but first-time poster. I felt compelled to chime in on this thread because it concerns two of my very favorite funds. I have held substantial positions in both AKRIX and EGFIX for several years and am very pleased with both. I wish the expense ratios were lower, but that is my only complaint and I was able to access the institutional shares at Fidelity so they are 1.05 and 1.00, respectively.
I tend to prefer high active share, concentrated funds, which led me to the aforementioned pair, as well as the somewhat tamer PRBLX and JENSX.
I am not at all concerned about Chuck Akre’s retirement because I have faith that the portfolio managers John Neff and Chris Cerrone have learned a lot from their mentor. And the fact the fund has such a low turnover rate means they will not be called upon to do a lot of trading, anyways. If you are looking for high active share and low downside capture, you will be hard pressed to find a better fund.
I first learned of Edgewood Growth when I saw it listed as one of the top performing large growth funds over the past 5 and 10 years in a table posted online by Kiplinger’s. The thing that stood out to me was that out of the 10 funds listed in each of the tables it was the only one listed that did not have a volatility ranking of 9 or 10. (It was a 5).
I like the fact this fund is not discussed too much on these kinds of forums. It keeps it a sort of hidden gem. But with total assets of more than $35 billion, it has obviously caught the attention of a lot of (I think smart) investors.

Hi, Guy.
I'll ask Ed on your behalf.
On the capacity question, no. Being an ANT does not reduce any capacity constraints the strategy might otherwise have. That being said, it looks like they're running at $3 billion below their former peak. It appears as if Rolls Royce is their smallest cap name at $12 billion. If that's as small as they want to get, then a rough calculation gives them $18 billion in strategy capacity. (That's based on the assumption that they don't want to own more than 5% of the float for their smallest name, and that each name could represent one-thirtieth of the portfolio.)
David

+1 Thanks @sma3
Shorting stocks is fraught with peril. Simple reason being a stock has no limit (theoretically) on how high it can go. Losses could be indefinite. However, in the hands of an experienced trader, fund manager, etc. short sales can add one dimension to the overall approach. As you note, there are ways to hedge that theoretical loss if you’re experienced enough. In defense of shorts, DODBX’s last semiannual report mentioned their holding a 5% short position on the S&P.
Guessing market direction is always tough - and we’re usually wrong. From my experience you’ve got only perhaps a 1 in 10 chance of getting it right at any given time. I think whether to own one of the short etfs you mention, or a fund like TMSRX or an inverse fund has a lot to do with age, circumstance and willingness to take risk. For a younger or even mid-50s worker who is socking $$ away for retirement, they should stay as far away from the short / inverse gimmicks as possible. But for an oldster looking to protect a substantial nest egg these “gimmick” approach’s might help buffer against severe unexpected loss. As with insurance, there is a price to be paid - likely muted returns over the long haul compared to not using them.

There are lots of ETFs that try to move counter to the market ( SH) , or provide a floor under losses ( take your pick 5 9 13 % or higher BUFF) or buy puts ( TAIL) These should all do well during a correction.
Inverse funds unfortunately drop to a smaller and smaller portion of your portfolio as the market moves higher. lowering their impact. It is unclear to me what an ETF that is structured to buffer a 5 to 15% loss will do in a 20% correction.
Puts might be your best bet, as you know ahead of time how much you stand to give up, although you have to constantly maintain a position to continue the "protection".
Usual advice is don't put money into the market you can't afford to loose. I am afraid this may also apply to the Bond Market now
While conservative equities with a "margin of safety" are likely to eventually reclaim any significant correction, the P/Es on a number of high flyers may take years. I assume it would take an equally long time for a 1.5% coupon bond to recover, if ever.

TMSRX only concern is that expense ratio is 1.29.

You’re being generous if that’s your only concern. Some of that “fee” isn’t really related to management of the fund, but simply reflects some of the expenses peculiar to short selling. For many years they weren’t included in the ER. I’ll guess on the date. But I think it was around 2000 that the SEC began requiring these costs be disclosed in the ER and, as a result, the stated fees on such funds jumped.
This article explains those costs - which simply stated are (1) Dividend expenses on short sales and (2) Interest expense on short sales
Price’s ER is in line with similar funds and I’d expect the 1.29 ER to be lower in a few more years as assets increase. The fund (perhaps deservedly) has been subject to some brickbats. However, when it rains out (and equities nose dive) it holds up very well - a haven of sorts from the storm.
I’m not trying to sell it. My own commitment is in the area of only 14-15% of portfolio.

The September 2021 Morningstar Fund Investor newsletter indicates that Templeton Global Bond (TPINX) was downgraded from Silver to Neutral.
"This fund has stuck to Its guns, and that means it has
been wrong for a long time. Manager Michael
Hasenstab has been bullish on emerging markets and
bearish on U.S. bonds. The fund kept duration near
zero while maintaining outsize bets on Ukraine and
other emerging markets. We stayed positive on the
fund given Hasenstab’s past record, but eventually we
have to conclude that he’s not as good as we thought."
TPINX was one of the premier funds in the World Bond category years ago.
Templeton Global Bond was different from most World Bond funds due to substantial emerging markets exposure and its currency bets. As of 01/31/16, the fund generated top 1% / top 2% category returns for the respective 10 Yr and 15 Yr trailing periods.
Michael Hasenstab (M* 2010 Fixed-Income Manager of the Year) started co-managing TPINX on 12/31/2001.
Several fund managers have come and gone since then.
Templeton Global Bond was moved to the Nontraditional Bond category in 2019.
I remember purchasing Templeton Global Income (GIM - CEF version of TPINX) in late 2013.
GIM was trading with an attractive discount and it had a lower expense ratio than TPINX.
Unfortunately, the discount widened and Mr. Hasenstab lost his mojo.
I sold the CEF approximately five years later booking a small profit.

”I worry that standard 30/70 funds will do poorly when both bonds and stocks get hit badly”

That’s a great point. Normally “the world turns over” every 24 hours. But when it comes to falling or very low interest rates, this has been going on now for 30-40 years - an obscenely long time.
The temptation is to run to riskier assets and away from bonds. Yet, when markets really tank, stocks can stink up the joint a lot worse than bonds can. If nervous about interest sensitive bonds, consider short duration bonds or bond funds out to perhaps 3-5 years.
I also worry about traditional “balanced” funds - be the ratio 60/40, 40/60, 30/70 or 60/30/10 (RPGAX). All are subject to the “double-whammy” of bonds & equities submerging together. That, I think, is why TRP brought out TMSRX which is capable of garnering a modest return even in a market marked by falling bond and equity prices. I have a couple others I think may offer similar benefits, but am not confident or versed enough in them to post or recommend.

Agree @mark. When you carry that many funds, for every winner in a portfolio there are probably 5-10 mediocre to bad funds too. Just the rules of the game. Your portfolio is indexed at best.

I’ve been watching this discussion hoping for some insight on EGFFX, a fund unbeknownst to me. From what I can see looking at the holdings it’s a pure growth vehicle that has avoided the relative drop that affected so many growth funds this calendar year. A search on MFO of the fund symbol shows that the only person who said he was a buyer was our erstwhile contributor, Old_Skeet, and that message is from 2015. I have held AKREX for about 8 years and been very pleased. Thanks to @Griffin for showing us that there gems out there that don’t get our attention.

I could name 50 funds I'd rather see in an etf wrapper- JABAX FBALX VWINX FTANX etc, but never in a thousand years SEQUX !

POLRX has beaten POGRX handily over the last few years. granted POLRX is 25% FANG but somehow I doubt when there is a major correction POGRX will loose less

It always amazes me how people who did such a great job for so long a time could collectively agree to violate one of the most fundamental rule of investing DIVERSIFY!
If they had remembered, betting on Valeant would have been a 5% blip, not 50%
OF course they are in a not so small group. Bruce Berkowitz immediately comes to mind, Third Avenue Value etc.

Apparently Ruane, Cunniff & Goldbarb plan to launch a non-transparent, active ETF version of the Sequoia Fund. The expense ratio has not been disclosed.
The current Sequoia team began digging out from under the rubble almost exactly five years ago.
Good news: Ummm ... an opportunity to write nostalgic pieces about The Titan That Once Was?
Bad news: since the new team took over, Sequoia's rank in its 138 fund Lipper Multi-Cap Growth peer group is ...
Annual return: 110th
Sharpe ratio: 111th
Capture ratio (S&P500): 115th
Downside deviation: 97th, that is, 97 have better "bad volatility" scores than Sequoia
Maximum drawdown: 120th
I wonder where else there would be any buzz around the announcement, "hey, guys, we're offering a clone of the 115th best fund in its peer group! Climb abroad"?
David

“Investors in European junk bonds have begun accepting interest payments that are lower than eurozone inflation levels for the first time ever, in the latest sign that central banks’ crisis-era debt purchases have shifted the balance between risk and reward. The yield on ICE BofA index of European high-yield bonds was pushed down to 2.34 per cent this week, marking the first time buyers of so-called high-yield European currency bonds have accepted payments below consumer price inflation in the eurozone …
Analysts said investors’ willingness to extend credit to the riskiest borrowers while losing money in real terms reflected the scarcity of other opportunities to earn returns in debt markets. At the same time, Europe’s strong recovery from the pandemic following a bumper earnings season has reduced the risk that junk bond issuers will default.”
(If your bond or multi-asset fund holds global debt you may own some of these.)
The Financial Times

Interesting...to me anyways. PV is now posting in its inflation data for 2021 = 4.81%

Good discussion on AKREX. I had almost forgotten about this fund. I just rechecked and another point in its favor is that only dropped about 15% in Feb and March of 2020. I need to study this one again. I’m also interested in looking at its correlation with SPY to see if helps diversify my portfolio more. Like others I am still a bit too heavy on growth — primarily because my 401K equity options are somewhat limited to SPY, EFA and FSMAX. EFA is a more value oriented index but Europe has greatly underperformed US for years

Multi-alternative funds tend to be pricey, complex, and opaque.
They may use combinations of various strategies: long/short equity, interest rate/currency bets, derivatives, commodities, arbitrage, etc. Many investors don't understand how these disparate strategies interact or the actual risks involved. To add insult to injury in the IQDAX liquidation, $750M of investor's money is being set aside to cover potential lawsuits.

VWINX current duration is 8 years. So if rates increase 2% the bonds will drop 16%, taking the fund down 11%.
The problem with comparisons to the 1980s is the SP500 started at very low PEs, so a lot of the return in VWINX was from the 30% equity portion. From 12/79 to 3/80 before the equity blast off VWINX lost 13%
I would think you need something to hedge the rate increases if they come, along with faltering economic growth. Maybe real assets as mentioned, but that implies economic growth, which would also support equites.
"this time it is different" may in fact be true today , as they has never been a comparable time with sky high equities valuations and sky high bond prices
I worry that standard 30/70 funds will do poorly when both bonds and stocks get hit badly

I've held AKREX/AKRIX for a number of years and am very pleased with it. It's all about perception and expectation, I believe. If you want a LCG fund with FAANG stocks and other go-go stocks, then AKREX/AKRIX is not the vehicle.
AKREX has performed superbly outside of 2020, when it was in the 87th percentile (-15% of LCG), BY FAR its worst relative performance.
Unfortunately, 2020 skews its multi-year relative category performance ranking. Its annual ranks range from 1% to 29%; YTD 28%. Not bad as far as i am concerned.
Its ten-year rank is in the 17th percentile (20.04%), again good with me. As Graust stated, its a good diversifier for other growth funds. I'll go a step further and say it's a good diversifier for most LCV and LCB funds, particularly S&P500 indexes which are top-heavy with FAANG.
One last point, its Risk/Reward profile for all time frames is exceptional; it's also a GO fund. That's not so say there aren't better funds available, but AKREX/AKRIX is a fund to consider.
Just one man's opinion.
A good discussion, keep the thread alive.
Matt

If there's nothing stopping one from gaming the system, one could then immediately combine those multiple accounts to meet the $50K Admiral share requirement.
I only gave an existence proof that even if one is not a flagship customer, once one has multiple open accounts they can be combined. Combining them does not violate Vanguard's restriction on opening new accounts (which flagship customers don't have to follow, anyway). Nor does it violate Vanguard's restrictions on buying additional shares.
Thank you for your use of the word "one" instead of "you" in your prior post.
I am a long time Vanguard Flagship Plus client with Vanguard. Opening an account in a closed Primecap managed fund in multiple accounts was a suggestion of the Vanguard Flagship Relationship Manager. One Primecap managed fund in one account does not interest me and multiple Primecap managed funds in multiple accounts interests me even less.