@Mona, thanks for the reminder of Odyssey funds. I am a Flagship client, but I don’t use their advisor services. Not sure the process of getting into Vanguard PRIMECAP funds. Vanguard Capital Opportunity is managed by PRIMECAP and is similar to their mid-cap equivalent of Odyssey Aggressive Growth, POAGX. Will contact Flagship service.

@msf, thank you. I am interested in Capital Opportunity fund.

Since Capital Opportunity is also closed if you are not Flagship, you might want to look at Primecap Odyssey Growth POGRX.

@msf, thank you. I am interested in Capital Opportunity fund.

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

Just another general comment about AKREX and PGIRX (a somewhat close cousin to POLRX). Both under performed in 2020 as the stock market melted up in response to central bank and fiscal policy interventions. That doesn't concern or surprise me. This is waiting time for me for these two OEFs. How successfully will their stock selection approaches adapt to match the contours of the emerging new normal economy? It will take perhaps a couple of years for me to get a sense for that. And, yes. Multiple studies indicate active manager market out performance that continues for a decade or more is quite unusual for OEFs.

@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

@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.

The basic challenge: https://spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/spiva/research-risk-adjusted-spiva-scorecard-year-end-2020.pdf

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?

It has been said - for example, by the NYTimes' editorial board - that politicians pick their voters, and NOT the other way around.
Believe that the same may be true with Vanguard. In much the same way that politicians - via gerrymandering - pick their voters, it would appear that Vanguard is picking its customers through the delivery of poor customer service.
If you have a problem with the provided service levels, please (says Vanguard) take your business elsewhere. (And having done so, if you want to invest in Vanguard ETFs or funds with another broker, even better, since this drives Vanguard's asset levels up with no incremental costs to Vanguard.)
Note: For those unable to access the NYT, below is a link - no paywall, I think - to a similar article that describes how gerrymandering works. If that doesn't work for you, including the wiki entry for gerrymandering.
Finally, there are many different meanings for the word 'service', a few of which are somewhat profane. These are described, quite politely, at this link here. See noun #10, and verb (d).
Politicians Choosing Their Voters, Carter Hanson, 06-22-2020
https://chanson7908.medium.com/politicians-choosing-their-voters-119828fec2d
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

@newgirl -
No criticism of you intended. Ed’s one of my favorites. So, I appreciated your invitation to address his piece. He has an interesting writing style in which he seems to be “thinking out loud” (on script) as he goes along, rather than being tightly organized around central points. Far be it from me to critique him - but he can be hard to decipher some times.
Can’t beat his depth of experience. The fund Ed ran (OAKBX) viewed preservation of capital as paramount. Generally it was very good at that during his long tenure. And, I sense that concern often in reading him.
Buffett: - Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No.1."
(Quote attributed to Warren Buffett. Easier said than done. Certainly Buffett has experienced losses along the way.)

Unlike previous cycles, most excesses in capital markets are self correcting in this cycle, except the elephant in the room - crypto. Unlike equities, which eventually have to prove with earnings, what will cause the crypto craze to go bust when your Congressmen and billionaires have invested in it and cryptos have never promised any returns (a la dividends). When crypto miners were shut down in China (environmental issues), they were welcomed to the US and Congressmen lobbied / cheered for them. Every time one asks cryptos to prove their value, they point at fiat currencies. I have no idea where the crypto craze, with multi trillion valuation, is headed. If it ends in a disaster, it will not end well for the country. So, may be we are stuck with just regulating and propping it up. The longer we wait to regulate it, the bigger the mania it is going to be, and bigger the eventual potential burst.

update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312521265144/d439010d497.htm
497 1 d439010d497.htm AQR RISK PARITY II MV FUND
AQR FUNDS
Supplement dated September 3, 2021 (“Supplement”)
to the Class I Shares, Class N Shares and Class R6 Shares
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information, each dated May 1, 2021,
as amended, of the AQR Risk Parity II MV Fund (the “Fund”)
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information. Please review this important information carefully. You may obtain copies of the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information free of charge, upon request, by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248.
At a meeting held on August 19-20, 2021, the Board of Trustees of AQR Funds (the “Trust”) approved a proposal to liquidate the Fund on or about November 5, 2021 (“Liquidation Date”). Information regarding the liquidation was disclosed to shareholders via a Prospectus supplement dated August 20, 2021. A copy of this August 20, 2021 supplement can be obtained free of charge by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248. You may also view this supplement on the AQR Funds website at https://funds.aqr.com/fund-documents by viewing the Fund’s current Summary Prospectus or Prospectus.
In the August 20, 2021 supplement, it was disclosed that the Fund had declared two dividends to occur prior to the Liquidation Date, a special distribution to all holders of record as of August 30, 2021 and a second special distribution to all holders of record as of November 1, 2021, collectively consisting of any undistributed income and capital gains (net of available capital loss carryovers).
The Fund has now declared a third dividend to occur prior to the Liquidation Date, a special distribution to all holders of record as of September 10, 2021. In addition, prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund may declare one or more additional dividends to all holders of record as of a date or dates to be determined. Prior notice of such additional dividends will be posted to the AQR Funds website at https://funds.aqr.com.
We appreciate your investment in the AQR Funds. For more information, please contact the Trust at (866) 290-2688.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE

Hasn't the value of "estimating 2019 capital gains" become zero? It's history. Same for estimating 2020 capital gains. Bring on "Estimating 2021 capital gains."

Today the Fed (and other central banks across the globe) is part of the market.

The Fed and the stock market are for now co-dependent and planning to live in a somewhat lower interest rate world. The pandemic and the Fed's more inclusive employment mandate have further solidified this change.

Here is an article that unpacks some of the challenges embedded in my previous comment.

At stake is just how hot officials are willing to let the labor market run before they start to shut off support of cheap money.
Act too soon and the minority and less educated workers Powell now includes in the policy calculus could miss out on jobs and wage gains. Act too late and inflation could accelerate....

Fed’s Next Big Policy Debate: How to Define Maximum Employment

A short South China Morning Post article with a few examples of how these terms are being put to work by Chinese regulators. The depth, breadth, and expected duration of the crackdown somewhat surprise me. But, suspect most Chinese businesses will adapt and continue to thrive. Still have the shares of MEGMX (30% China/Hong Kong per latest report) purchased when it opened for trading in mid spring 2020. Nothing so far is making me think about selling.
Xi Jinping says Big Tech crackdown is making progress, calls for Communist Party to ‘guide’ companies

Yesterday I opened a very small short inverse position on the Dow using DOG. I fully understand the dangers inherent in such an approach. Today I get this email …
“Now that you’ve placed a trade, don’t forget about the next important step – your exit strategy.
Having a plan from the start can help you: Take potential profits if you’ve reached your target gains.
Help manage potential losses by predetermining when to sell. Setting an exit plan for your latest trade doesn’t have to be complicated and Fidelity can help. Define and set one today.”
For my inspiration …

The King of Buy & Hold

John Templeton once said, "History shows that time, not timing, is the key to investment success. Therefore, the best time to buy stocks is when you have money"

...few people invest in such a way as to give themselves the best chance of multiplying their capital because they're always, as the cliche runs, pulling up the plant to look at the roots.

Nick-Train-The-King-of-Buy-and-Hold