According to the various prospectuses, flagship customers can open new accounts. The prospectuses don't describe the procedure.
VPMCX:

Vanguard PRIMECAP 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 in this supplement ...

https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/sp59.pdf?2210151539
VPCCX (allowing flagship customers to invest unlimited amounts in existing or new accounts):

Vanguard PRIMECAP Core 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, without purchase limitations

https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/sp1220.pdf?2210151473

The Schwab reports once in 5 attempts in top 25% . It took off , like so many other funds, after last major market correction. Watch list here.
Derf

@msf said:
One cannot open a new account in a Vanguard PRIMECAP fund (Primecap, Primcap Core, Capital Opportunity) unless one is a flagship customer at Vanguard. As Vanguard closes other funds it usually (but not always) continues to make the funds available to flagship customers. Only flagship customers at Vanguard can add more than $25K/year to VPCCX.

Correct me if I am wrong. I don't think you can open new account with closed Primecap funds. Do you need to talk with a representative?

Good numbers. As an aside, you’ve shown that ALAAX currently holds substantially more fixed income than PRSIX.
PRSIX = 41.21% fixed income
ALAAX = 49.83% fixed income
Difference = 8.62%
Truth be told, a higher % in fixed income (ALAAX) would have led to somewhat lower returns in the period since 2008 as interest rates (even on junk bonds) have been mostly low single-digit while equities have been in a prolonged bull market (IMHO a reason to disavow them on occasion ).

In saying that a fund with a higher percentage of fixed income would do worse when equities are soaring, you're assuming that more fixed income means less equity, that the investment universe is partitioned into fixed income and equity. That meshes well with a broad concept of fixed income as described by BlackRock:

What is fixed income investing?
Fixed income is an investment approach focused on preservation of capital and income. It typically includes investments like government and corporate bonds, CDs and money market funds. Fixed income can offer a steady stream of income with less risk than stocks.

https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/education/fixed-income
Here are the equity figures for the two funds, using this broad sense of fixed income:
ALAAX "equity" (non-fixed income) =
100% - 49.83% "fixed income" (narrow sense) - 5.17% "cash" (e.g. TRPXX) =
45.00% "equity"
PRSIX "equity" (non-fixed income) =
100% - 41.21% "fixed income" (narrow sense) - 13.72% "cash" (e.g. TRP Reserve Investment Funds) =
45.07% "equity"
No difference, broadly speaking.
When M* gives a breakdown by credit rating of "fixed income", it is using "fixed income" in a narrow sense. Recognizing that M* is using "fixed income" narrowly, perhaps a more complete calculation for ALAAX's junk bond holdings would be:
"Fixed income": 28.31% junk x 49.83% = 14.11%
"Cash":               0.00% junk x   5.17% =   0.00%
"Equity":              0.00% junk x  45.00% =  0.00%

---

Total portfolio:                             100%     14.11% junk

Overall, PRSIX holds more sub-BBB rated paper at this time
Actually not (see below), though ALAAX holds more IG paper, which could explain it tracking the IG bond market a bit better than PRSIX.
While M* counts unrated bonds as junk, we really don't know. Nevertheless, using M*'s figures:
PRSIX:
(11.46% BB + 11.65% B + 3.72% below B + 6.96% NR) x 41.21% fixed income =
33.79% x 41.21% =
13.92% of the portfolio is junk bonds
ALAAX:
(19.05% BB + 5.32% + 0.51% below B + 3.43% NR) x 49.83% fixed income =
28.31% x 49.83% =
14.11% of the portfolio is junk bonds
As a percentage of total holdings, there's more junk in ALAAX than in PRSIX. The reason why it can also have more IG than PRSIX is that ALAAX has more fixed income in toto than PRSIX.

https://news.yahoo.com/father-son-help-clients-forgotten-121500289.html
Good luck, Derf

Other, lesser reasons:
One cannot open a new account in a Vanguard PRIMECAP fund (Primecap, Primcap Core, Capital Opportunity) unless one is a flagship customer at Vanguard. As Vanguard closes other funds it usually (but not always) continues to make the funds available to flagship customers. Only flagship customers at Vanguard can add more than $25K/year to VPCCX.
If you'd like an individual Roth 401k with no fees that has access to Vanguard OEFs, you probably have to do this with Vanguard. (I did something similar with TRP, because at the time it was the only no-fee individual 401k with a Roth option. Vanguard's came later.)
These days, MMFs are completely useless. But before yields dropped to zero, VUSXX (Treasury MMF) was a good competitor to internet banks, especially in a taxable account for people living in high tax states. (Treasuries are state tax exempt.) Like internet banks, it was (is) easy to move cash back and forth.
Almost by definition Vanguard investors are frugal (the politically correct term for "cheap"). That's enough reason to invest directly at Vanguard.

msf - Thanks for comments. Believe you are, in effect, making or confirming my point.
Don't expect that new-to-Vanguard investors that did any sort of due diligence prior to investing with Vanguard will be surprised with Vanguard's current customer 'service' levels.
It is what it is.
Think the issue is more relevant to older investors (like myself), who first invested with Vanguard during era when Mr Bogle was either running the place, and/or alive. We actually remember when there was a there, there.
But that was then, and it is now. Think we have to get over it, and move along. Nothing to see here .... etc.
For example, FWIW, a family member had to do a 401-k rollover, and asked for my advice regarding where the money should go, i.e., which custodian?
I asked them if being able to talk with a person about their investments was important, and how long they wanted to wait for this 'privilege'. Based on answers (Yes and 15 minutes or less), I recommended Fidelity or Schwab. They went with Fidelity.
I faced a similar decision myself several months ago, with respect to an in-service 401-k to IRA rollover. I chose Fidelity, and invested the check that I received in several very low cost ETFs. As it happens, none of them were Vanguard (or Fidelity) ETFs, but they might have been.
Think that Vanguard, by way of John Bogle, created a a revolutionary idea or maybe a public good - like the town common. This was the expectation that investing for the little guy can be incredibly inexpensive and efficient.
While Vanguard is not itself a public company (i.e., for-profit entity with stock that is traded on an exchange and which is owned by stockholders, with officers and board that are accountable to the stockholders), Bogle's revolutionary ideas were copied (and improved?) by other public companies and delivered very efficiently via ETFs and brokerage accounts to the public. (Wonders of capitalism and competition.)
Note: In an effort to compete - and drive their own costs even lower - Vanguard was forced to eliminate new "mutual fund accounts", as opposed to "brokerage fund accounts" for their clients. (There are some exceptions. Understand, for example, that employees of financial firms with restrictions on holding brokerage accounts outside of their employer - for compliance reasons - can open a "mutual fund account" at Vanguard.)
In any event, there is not much reason (really) to invest with Vanguard anymore. Not sure that there is anything that Vanguard can do that Vanguard competitors can not do. (Exception might be very low cost money market funds to act as the "clearing" investment in a brokerage account. But that's about it.)
As long as Vanguard exists in its current form, it is sort of like the Frontier Airlines effect often noted in various cities around the the country. As soon as Frontier makes a city a hub or mini-hub, competitors' ticket prices go down at that location. Once Frontier is operating in your city, you don't need to fly Frontier to get the benefit of lower ticket prices.
Same thing with Vanguard. As long as it is around, it will keep competitors' prices in check. But you don't need to own Vanguard mutual funds or ETFs to get the benefits of its unique low-cost structure. You can (and should?) get them almost anywhere.
PS: Two years ago, Jonathan Clements commented on Vanguard's customer service issues at his "Humble Dollar" website. Titled "Whither Vanguard", it is available here. "Whither Vanguard" was originally posted on this board by the late Ted Didesch. Ted's post is here: https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/51709/jonathan-clements-whither-vanguard

It's a little difficult to divine intent in a single sentence, but what the heck ... And I'll try to relate this to M*'s issues with ALAAX.
I take Ed's comment to be a focused version of: if you find $1 worth of assets selling at 80¢, buy it. Here, if you can buy a real asset (e.g. a pipeline) for less than its replacement cost, go for it. I regard the part about income as a way to measure the intrinsic value of the asset.
Disregarding salvage value, you're buying something which will have a final value of zero. Its value is in the income (rent) it can generate. If the present value of that income stream is not better than the price, I wouldn't buy it, even if the price is less than the cost to replace it. Note also that while the replacement may cost more than an existing pipeline, it will also have a longer lifetime, hence a longer income stream. It's not quite as simple as comparing one cost to another.
How does all this relate to ALAAX? M*'s analysis and the objective star ratings point to ALAAX overpaying for the value it is receiving. True, it is generating a lot of income. But for that, it is investing in higher risk holdings and as hank noted poorer performing funds that eat significantly into the total return.
It's like paying up for a premium bond to get a higher income stream. For example, the 10 year treasury yield is currently around 1.3%. In Fidelity's inventory, I find a 10 year note maturing 5/15/31, offered at 103, with 1.625% coupons. That's a fair price; its YTM is just under 1.3%.
One would be willing to pay a bit above par (here, 103) to get that higher income stream so long as the total returns were comparable. But there's a limit. One wouldn't overpay, say 105, just to get that higher income stream.
M*'s analysis says that Invesco has been optimizing the portfolio for total return, and then overpaying to increase the income. Since star ratings reflect total return, and total return is below what it "should" be, the star ratings are naturally lower.
(Side note: try comparing ALAAX to PRSIX; they each have 55% in fixed income and cash, with the remainder in equities and "other". PRSIX targets total return and doesn't overpay for income.)
Getting back to pipelines: if you can generate that higher income without overpaying for it, and without running the risk of losing out to newer, cheaper pipelines, then they're worth considering.

You know that expression about old dogs and new tricks? I tend to stick with M*'s premium screener (free with the legacy Roth I keep at T. Rowe Price and almost never trade).
A relatively simple screen there:
5* rating
Style box = small (cap)
Category = International Equity
Category != World small/mid stock
This returns four share classes: HAISX / HIISX, WIGTX, and ADVLX
As it turns out, this is simple enough that one can get similar results with M*'s basic screener with three separate screens:
5* rating
Category = Foreign small/mid value
5* rating
Category = Foreign small/mid blend
5* rating
Category = Foreign small/mid growth
On the portfolio view of the results, sort on market cap, and look at anything under $2B.
The basic screen for sm/mid foreign value funds returns the Harbor shares and QUSOX / QUSIX. The latter (institutional class) can be purchased (TF) with a $2500 min at Schwab. Its performance comes within a hair's breadth of HAISX, 47.64% vs 47.75% cumulative from 5/23/19 to the present. QUSIX holds no companies larger than midcap (very similar to HAISX, even slightly fewer midcaps and slightly more microcaps). But QUSIX does have a tad more volatility. Here's PV's comparison.
The screen for sm/mid foreign blend funds returns ADVLX and FISMX. (ADVLX was reclassified to blend from growth in 2021.) FISMX's performance misses by slightly more: 45.35% vs 47.75% cumulative from 5/23/19. It's tilted a bit more toward mid cap, with 8% in large caps. Aside from that, its cap distribution is little different from HAISX's, with 44% in small & microcap vs 46% for HAISX. Here's PV's head to head comparison.
The screen for sm/mid foreign growth funds just returns WIGTX (and funds which land in the midcap range).
This all just goes to show that tweaking screens slightly, or using screeners with different choices of criteria can get you different results.

The Professor may have been looking at Lipper, which classifies WIGTX as a global small/mid cap fund. M* currently classifies its portfolio as substantially all foreign, and the fund itself as foreign small/mid growth. But with a 176% turnover rate, who knows what it looked like six months ago? I haven't gone back to check.
ADVLX has also outperformed HAISX since 5/23/2019, albeit not by nearly as much and with a tailwind (being a growth fund). Both Lipper and M* classify it as a foreign small/mid cap fund. Just 1/40th of its portfolio contains large cap companies (HAISX has none), while it has more microcaps (6%) than HAISX (1%). In short, they're both small cap funds.
In contrast, OAKEX is a midcap fund, with 5/8 of its portfolio in midcaps, and just 1/5 in smaller companies, none of those being microcaps.
Portfolio visualizer comparison of the three funds
With regard to M*'s robotic rating, it's just that. IMHO a work in progress that isn't worth paying any attention to, at least yet. Also, the negative rating is a machine's "opinion" for the whole five years the fund has been around, not just the last 2.5 years.

This is a very interesting fund. September commentaries say: ...".over the past 2.5 years, the period roughly corresponding to Cedar Street’s management of the fund, it has been the best performing international small cap fund in existence."
On the other hand, M* gives them 5 stars but Negative rating. It is quite possible that M* gives negative ratings without full understanding of the funds. But, if I am not mistaken, Oakmark International Small Cap beats Harbor International Small Cap for the last 3 years, 2.5 years, and 1 year. And for the last 3 years WIGTX decimated both of these funds.

@mcmarasco, "What do you feel is an appropriate honeymoon?" That was my question too. It seems investors already give him an overwhelmingly good grade because half of the $5B AUM came in as net inflows just in 2021. May be the fund's 2021 performance would have been even better without those inflows. With that type of inflows and high turnover ratio, I think he can implement his strategy without triggering too much per share year end cap gain distributions. But it may be sensible to not buy into potential YE cap gain distributions, as you point out.

One I’m messing with just a bit but am reluctant to mention: ALAAX.
What is it? An income producing fund with about 50% in bonds, 30% in equities, 5% cash and 15% “other”. (The “other” likely includes REITS, commodities, convertibles and a few short positions.)
Goal? To provide income greater than what bonds alone can produce, using dividend paying stocks inside that 30% component.
Fee: .76% due to a fee wavier. Lower than otherwise, but still too high IMO.
What I like: Seems to have outdistanced RPSIX and other multi-asset income funds over longer periods by 2 or 3 percentage points, albeit with more risk. A decent supplement to my mostly conservative bond bunds.
What I don’t like: In addition to the .76% fee, everybody seems to hate this fund. M* rates it 2 / 5. Lipper has it in the bottom 20% on performance (but higher on cap preservation). Max Funds gives it something like a 35% (poor) rating. Also, a few of the underlying funds stink - including some of the aggressive bond bunds that blew-up on Oppenheimer in 2008.
PS - I like the concept and have searched for an ETF with lower fees that resembles this. But haven’t come across anything. I still have some $$ directly at Invesco which helps explain how I stumbled on this one.

I found the most sobering analysis focused on the jobs report with it's huge miss of expected payroll ( 235,000 ) and the large increase in hourly wages ( 0.6%)
https://www.barrons.com/articles/economy-jobs-report-fed-stagflation-51630706928?mod=past_editions
This coupled with dramatic decreases in the expected GDP growth ( 2.5% down from 6.5%) makes me very cautious.
As soon as the Fed takes away the punch bowl, watch out. But this time Bonds are so over priced there will be little shelter there, especially if rates rise

This week’s Barron’s is disappointing in that Randall Forsyth is missing for the second straight week. Ben Levisohn, filling in at the Up & Down Wall Street spot isn’t nearly as good, IMHO. Levisohn addresses Friday’s disappointing jobs numbers - but I’m not quite sure where he’s going …
Generally, this week’s publication reflects a highly bullish tone. Several articles mention a continuing accommodative Federal Reserve stance. One article is titled “A Homebuilder Stock That Could Soar 65%”. Another bullish take appears in the magazine’s lead article, “The Trader” with its headline: “The Trend is Your Friend.”
One note of dissension appears from perma-bear Alan M Newman in the section featuring recent “snippets” from different market pundits. Here’s a brief excerpt:
“There are now so many parallels with history-making manias such as the South Sea Bubble, the Roaring ’20s, Tulip Mania, and even the relatively recent Tech/Internet Bubble that the present era in retrospect, may one day appear the craziest of all …. Today’s parallels are every bit as crazy, even hilarious. While the blockchain technology that many of the roughly 4,500 invented crypto currencies is based on is valid, there is ample reason to dispute valuations …
A Google search for ‘intrinsic value of Dogecoin,’ returns ‘..has no intrinsic value’. Thus, Dogecoin has turned out to be the 2021 equivalent of “carrying on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is.’ You can’t make this stuff up, folks.” *
There’s an in-depth look at SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s efforts to overhaul equity trading platforms with the goal of making the prices paid by small investors fairer. Robinhood, particularly, is in his cross-hairs. Gensler likes to shake thing up. One may recall about a dozen years ago when he took on the mutual fund industry, publicly decrying what he considered excessive fees - at the same time his twin brother Robert managed one of T. Rowe Price’s largest equity funds.
* Excerpted passage from Barron’s - September 6, 2021
Feel free to add other opinions from Barron’s or other sources / pundits you may follow.

Vanguard's MGK (Mega Cap Growth) might be an even better choice:

https://seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4453466-mgc-vanguards-mega-cap-etf-holds-nothing-but-winners
MGC: Vanguard's Mega-Cap ETF Holds Nothing But Winners
Sep. 3, 2021 1:24 PMVanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC)AAPL, AMZN, BRK.A
Summary
The Vanguard MGC ETF is a passive managed fund that tracks a Mega-Cap Index.
Maybe good idea buy some MCG

How much does the 3.5 T infrastructure package , if passed, play into ones investment ideas ? Just maybe the passage is already priced in ?!
Trying to stay Kool, Derf

Sept 3rd Episode:

PYEWX
Also, look at short lived Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Admiral, VEGBX