VWINX has done well since the 1970's because rates have fallen.
I often include VWINX

Rate climbed throughout they late 70’s…early 80’s…
I would add PRPFX to the conversation.

Hi @davfor VWINX is certainly a good fund and one of my larger holdings. I am concerned about the long bond holdings and how they will do in inflationary times. It has benefited from falling rates which may not be there in the future. VWINX has done well since the 1970's because rates have fallen.
I often include VWINX in articles, and the September article shows that conservative funds do well on a risk adjusted basis. I tried to focus this article more on categories that do well during secular bear markets.
Thanks for reading.

Hi @davfor VWINX is certainly a good fund and one of my larger holdings. I am concerned about the long bond holdings and how they will do in inflationary times. It has benefited from falling rates which may not be there in the future. VWINX has done well since the 1970's because rates have fallen.
I often include VWINX in articles, and the September article shows that conservative funds do well on a risk adjusted basis. I tried to focus this article more on categories that do well during secular bear markets.
Thanks for reading.

Hi @Vegomatic,
The funds were chosen based on their characteristics including valuations and allocation to foreign stocks and bonds. The backtest was only to show how the portfolio would have performed over the past several years. What I like about FFFDX is the glidepath which I covered in table #3 of the August article. I included it because it gets more conservative over time. I also like that the Target Date funds have a relatively high allocation to international equities. Their risk adjusted return is solid.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2021/08/retrospection-is-a-hard-metric-to-match/
Thanks for reading and commenting.

It appeared the change of management team from Barings to Cedar Street since 2019 has improved the performance. Brodsky and Mozes have done well in this international small cap value space.
I have better luck with smaller cap growth funds than the value ones. Grandeur Peaks funds have done well even though they carry higher expense ratio. The hard closing of their funds makes future investing almost impossible when the funds are held at brokerages.

“These in turn all changed name from AIM to Invesco in 2010. It took just 14 years after Invesco acquired AIM to make the change.”
Thanks.Very helpful info. I’d assumed from the names (“Core bond fund” among them), that they were former Oppenheimer funds. Several seem to resemble Oppenheimer’s old funds by sound of the names. Might suggest a lack-of-imagination among fund managers.
I could replace ALAAX with PRSIX. Than slice PRSIX’s holdings into the % dedicated to (1) the smaller income sub-component and (2) the larger % devoted to the tracking fund position. Each time I sold or bought from one position the same “refractioning” process would need to be repeated. I’ve done this with a few other funds on rare occasion and have found it to be a PIB.
PRSIX has outperformed ALAAX over the past 10 years by 1.61% yearly on average. I ran that through a compound interest calculator and found that for every $1,000 invested the difference in total return would amount to $17.43 per year on average or $174.31 after 10 years. Not insignificant. Of course, we’re assuming both funds will continue to produce returns for the next 10 years closely resembling the past 10.
TRRIX is remarkably similar to PRSIX in allocation percentages, fees and performance. It’s outdistancing PRSIX substantially this year. A bit of a surprise.

Actually, HAISX's largest outperformance in 2020 was in February, when it outperformed its peers by 2.34% (-6.57% to -8.91%). In no other month of 2020 did it outperform by 2% or better.
In only two other months did it outperform its peers by over 1%, and one of those months was January. It paced its peers in March, -19.81% vs. -19.96%.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=HAISX
From March 20, 2020 through the end of 2020, it underperformed its peers, gaining 66.42% vs. its peers' 75.20%. See M* chart here.
66.42% is not chopped liver, so it's fair to say that it took off "after last major market correction". But it's not fair to suggest that it outperformed or even matched its peers because of the bounce.
Regarding those five attempts: Between April 30, 2019 and July 31, 2019, the new management substantially overhauled the portfolio. This became in effect a new fund. The only holdings kept (if I read correctly) were:
Senior PLC (aerospace), added 10%, totals 1.9% of fund
JAFCO Ltd, Japan (capital markets), 2.5% of fund
April 30, 2019 semiannual statement, HAISX portfolio
July 31, 2019 quarterly schedule of holdings, HAISX portfolio

I should correct my earlier statement that ALAAX held some Oppenheimer funds in 2008. The symbol for ALAAX suggests it’s an old Aim fund that Invesco picked up prior to merging with Oppenheimer. In that case, it could not have included any Oppenheimer funds in 2008. Perhaps that highlights that care must be taken when comparing long term records, as funds can change substantially over a number of decades.

FWIW, in 2008, ALAAX held:
AIM Core Bond Fund 17.91%
AIM Diversified Dividend Fund 14.08%
AIM Floating Rate Fund 7.32%
AIM High Yield Fund 14.19%
AIM Income Fund 8.65%
AIM International Core Equity Fund 4.67%
AIM International Total Return Fund 5.07%
AIM Real Estate Fund 0.00%
AIM Select Real Estate Fund 6.66%
AIM Short Term Bond Fund 6.20%
AIM U.S. Government Fund 7.22%
AIM Utilities Fund 8.24%
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/202032/000095012908004762/h58575nvcsrs.txt
These in turn all changed name from AIM to Invesco in 2010. It took just 14 years after Invesco acquired AIM to make the change.
https://www.invesco.com/pdf/BRAND-FLY-1-E.pdf?contentGuid=3841df8
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/05/business/invesco-to-acquire-aim-for-1.6-billion.html

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

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

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 ).
I should correct my earlier statement that ALAAX held some Oppenheimer funds in 2008. The symbol for ALAAX suggests it’s an old Aim fund that Invesco picked up prior to merging with Oppenheimer. In that case, it could not have included any Oppenheimer funds in 2008. Perhaps that highlights that care must be taken when comparing long term records, as funds can change substantially over a number of decades.
Finally, I don’t want to leave any impression I’m endorsing ALAAX. My reservations were previously stated. Owning a small chunk is an experiment. Indirectly, it also relates to my trading being currently restricted across all accounts at Fido until at least the the end of September (for alleged violations) where PRSIX is held. Oppenheimer / Invesco have always been most accommodative and easy to trade at - say what one will about the higher fees.

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

@msf - Nice statement summarizing Ed’s statement’s likely intent & his preferred method of investing. “Buy for a nickel. Sell for a dime.”, me thinks.
You may / may not have realized I’m quite fond of PRSIX which you have introduced into the equation here. I have selected it as my “benchmark“ / “tracking fund”, and it also accounts for about 8.2% of current portfolio. Price does an outstanding job with their allocation funds.
In contrast, only 2.8% of portfolio resides in ALAAX. The difference? PRSIX as the tracking fund occupies a dedicated position in the overall allocation (pegged at 7-8%). Whereas, ALAAX is a relatively small sub-component of the larger income segment.
As you noted elsewhere, “Old Dogs” find it hard to break established habits. I’ve been running these highly compartmentalized portfolios for a long time now, which helps explain how I can hold both PRISX and similar ALAAX at the same time while designating each to a different peculiar role in the portfolio. Notwithstanding, I’ll start comparing them on a daily basis to see if there is a stabilizing effect to be had from owning both. It does seem to me their performance diverges enough on a daily basis that there may be some benefit to keeping both.
Performance: Per your analysis, PRSIX has the better long-term track record. I did compare 2008 performance. PRSIX fell about 20% while ALAAX held up 1-2% better - despite the drubbing some of its (former Oppenheimer) components took than. In the early 2020 downturn, however, PRSIX held up notably better. The Quarter 1 2020 market nose-dive was unusual in that a liquidity crunch affected the investment grade bond market (even stressing money market funds).
Bond Quality: PRSIX currently holds more sub-BBB rated paper. And ALAAX does seem to respond a bit better on positive days in the investment grade bond market.
Thanks for all the precise input.
-
Added: It’s beyond my research capability … But am I correct that a greater proportion of ALAAX’s performance is derived from income (including stock dividends)? So, if one fixates more on how total return is generated rather than strictly on total return, it could make a difference (albeit largely philosophical) in a very compartmentalized approach. Just saying … :)

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.

Have owned AKREX for many years and PGIRX since inception of fund. No thoughts of selling either. This quote reflects much of the basic approach each of these funds takes:

We believe in owning exceptional businesses for as long as they remain so, paying appropriately for their growth prospects when such opportunities present, and holding on during periods of richer valuation out of respect for the exceptional quality of the business. Akre Focus Fund Report 1/31/21

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

Will keep this thread ...
All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site through August 2021, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, Dashboard of Launch Alerts, Portfolios, Quick Search, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.

https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Table-7.png
One of the funds in the portfolio is the Fidelity Freedom 2020 portfolio, FFFDX. Why does it make sense to include in the portfolio a 'target date' fund that for many years in the 'backtest' had an evolving (with time) asset allocation that was different from the current allocation?
Think - for example - that inclusion of a 'target date' fund might make more sense if the specific target date (i.e., 2020 for FFFDX) was adjusted to a future year, rather than a year in the past ... right?