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

The FT article (OP) is dated August 25. Here’s what it states:
“But Giroux has cut the fund’s equity exposure down from about 70 per cent at the market low of 2020 to the mid-50s per cent level now …”
Lipper, which is usually pretty accurate, still has it at 70%.

Today the Fed (and other central banks across the globe) is part of the market. To support the stock market, quantitive easing, QE was introduced back in 2008. During the COVID-19 pandemic and the country is being locked down. The broader market fell over 30% within 2 weeks. As part of the rescue plan, the Fed cut the interest rate to near zero. In addition, they bought $80B treasury and $40B mortgage backed bonds on a monthly basis. The market responded quickly and marching upward toward recovery. By fall 2020, the recession is over.
Below is a short piece from Brookings Institute on tapering of Fed's bond buying.
https://brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/07/15/what-does-the-federal-reserve-mean-when-it-talks-about-tapering/

My initial sentiment was only about sticking with solid method over time.
Your initial post showed how wonderful FLPSX was compared with other funds you considered as alternative investments at the time of a market peak (give or take). The fund navigated that one bear market (2000-2002) exceedingly well, even gaining in value. In all other bear markets during the fund's lifetime, it roughly paced the market:
July 16, 1990 - Oct 16, 1990: -17.46% vs. -19.9% for S&P 500
March 24, 2000 - Oct 9, 2002: +18.05% vs. -49.1%
Oct 9, 2007 - March 9, 2009: -53.64% vs. -56.8%
Feb 19, 2020 - March 23, 2020: -36.85% vs -35%
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/14/a-look-at-bear-and-bull-markets-through-history.html
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-sp500-hits-record-high-intraday-bear-market-recovery-2020-8
That one fluke does suggest that "Perhaps it is all luck" after all. Its "solid method" of investing didn't help it reproduce that success in other bear markets. Take away that one fluke and I think you'll find FLPSX 's performance is right in line with that of some good funds and below that of some others.
If the intent of the initial post was to show that funds with "solid methods" perform well, what was the purpose of including FAIRX? It hardly seems like a fund with a "solid method" of investing, at least not in recent years.
Rather than illustrate your thesis, FAIRX seems to act as a counterexample - that funds with lousy methods of investing can do as well as funds with solid methods.
Has he not largely adhered to the fund name?
FLPSX was a small cap fund for about half its lifetime. It managed to remain focused on small caps through the early 2000s even as AUM exploded. It used the tactic of buying more and more different small caps to spread out the money. This tactic ran out of steam when it hit 1,000 different companies.
As I recall, Fidelity explained that the fund was investing in a significant number of mid and large cap companies not because it had grown too large, but because it was remaining true to its "solid method". It claimed that its investing discipline naturally led to invest in larger cap stocks due to market conditions at the time. Ultimately Fidelity had to drop this charade and acknowledge that the fund had morphed into a mid cap fund.
With respect to adhering to its name, "Tillinghast concedes that Low-Priced, which purchases only stocks that sell for $35 a share or less, is 'a bit of a gimmick.'"
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/t041-c000-s002-small-and-mid-cap-funds.html

The real numbers always fascinate me and are often hard to find: https://wsj.com/articles/small-cap-stocks-may-be-pricier-than-they-appear-11629640805

For the Russell 2000 benchmark, leaving out the unprofitable companies means setting aside what for the past year has amounted to more than one third of the market value of the small-cap index, according to an analysis from Jefferies looking at earnings over the previous 12 months....
....Yet, other analysts say it’s misleading to present a valuation metric that omits such a substantial share of the Russell 2000. Investors who own the stocks in the index aren’t weeding out the hefty portion without earnings.
“You’re taking out like six, seven hundred companies from your calculation,” Steven DeSanctis, small- and midcap strategist at Jefferies. “If you took out all the Cs and Ds that I got in high school, I was a solid B-plus student.”
Metrics that include negative earnings show the Russell 2000 went from trading at 27 times its past 12 months of earnings at the end of March 2020 to trading at 238 times earnings one year later, according to data from index provider FTSE Russell. That multiple fell by nearly half over the following month, and as of July was down to about 70.
With loss-making companies removed, the Russell 2000’s price-to-earnings multiple was both lower and less volatile: about 14 in March 2020, up to nearly 25 in March 2021 and then down to 19 at the end of July.

Sounds about right @Sven. According to Investopedia they have up to 60 days after a quarter’s end to file their holdings with the SEC. If this is tantamount to a “public release”, than the near 2-month delay in D&C providing the semi-annual report to investors makes sense.
The current Barron’s contains an article “A fresh Batch of Active ETFs“ written by some guy named Lewis Braham. In it he mentions the issue of front-running when fund holdings are revealed too early. Different companies and managers have differing views. But TRP was singled out in particular as one house that likes to withhold such information as long as legally possible. I’d be willing to bet D&C is another.
Link to Barron’s Article (subscription required): https://www.barrons.com/articles/capital-groups-american-funds-is-finally-getting-into-etfs-51630089111
Note: The online article carries a different title from the print version which I read. Same content.

Vanguard Advice Select Dividend Growth will be managed by Donald Kilbride of Wellington.
This fund will be a more concentrated version of Vanguard Dividend Growth which Mr. Kilbride has managed since 2006.
Vanguard Advice Select International Growth will be comanaged by James Anderson* and Lawrence Burns. Both managers are part of the Baillie Gifford team which runs 70% of Vanguard International Growth.
Baillie Gifford invests with a venture capital approach which has generated high returns along with high volatility.
*Mr. Anderson will leave Baillie Gifford in April 2022 after nearly four decades with the firm.
Link