Like series I savings bonds, series EE savings bonds cannot be redeemed until a year after purchase. Between one and five years, you lose the last three months of interest if you cash out. No penalty after five years.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ebonds/res_e_bonds_eeredeem.htm#when
With EE series savings bonds, there's another implicit penalty. For savings bonds held 20 years, the value of the bond is adjusted to twice its purchase price. Using the rule of 72, that's an annual rate of approximately 72/20 = 3.6%.
But if you cash out earlier, you'll earn just the stated rate on the savings bonds. For newly purchased EE savings bonds, that's a piddly 0.10%. So you "lose" 3.5% in interest annually if you sell before waiting 20 years.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ebonds/res_e_bonds_eeratesandterms_eebondsissued052005andafer.htm#buy

It is a large cap growth fund with $5B AUM. It can grow 10 fold before I would worry about capacity constraints. It has had net outflows for each of the past 9 years. If it reaches capacity constraints in the next 10 years means the fund becomes enormously successful, a good problem to have.

From SPGlobal.com -
"The S&P U.S. Dividend Growers Index is designed to measure the performance of U.S. companies that have followed a policy of consistently increasing dividends every year for at least 10 consecutive years. The index excludes the top 25% highest-yielding eligible companies from the index."
The benchmark index used prior to the change to SPGlobal does not appear to have such an exclusion. https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/Methodology_DVG.pdf
https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/Index/Overview/DVG
I wondered how the differences in methodologies might effect the composition of the fund as a result of the change. The median market cap appear to go from $169B (Vanguard Portfolio page) to $13B - that is way too drastic change and I wish somebody checks me on this to make sure I have not goofed up. Weight of top 10 components does not change much (goes down from 31.5% to 30.5%) - i.e., well diversified (expect that from Vanguard). Dividend yield does not appear to change much - goes from 1.85% (M* info) to 1.74% - there are probably calc differences to call the 11 basis points a material difference, without digging in further.
VDADX short term and long term total return performances appear not impressive. There seem to be large blend funds from Vanguard that have much better performance and not attracted as much AUM as VDADX ($64B). What is the attraction of VDADX as a large blend fund? Can not possibly be the current dividend yield of 1.75%.

Baird is not a fund company that comes to mind when looking for equity funds. It is replacing the manager for these two funds with (as noted above) an affiliate of Baird (which owns 75%-100%).
Here's what little I can find on Greenhouse - it's indirectly owned by Baird (via ownership by Joseph M and Kirsten T Milano). It does not manage any OEFs, but manages $628M for eight clients including three hedge funds.
https://wallmine.com/adviser/235960/greenhouse-funds-lllp
About seven years ago, Baird floated the idea of a microcap fund managed by Greenhouse. It would own 50-100 companies, compared with 25-50 here.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/20043/greenhouse-microcap-discovery-fund-bcdsx
What caught my eye in that prospectus is that Joseph Milano had been manager of T. Rowe Price New America Growth Fund (now All Cap Opportunities Fund) PRWAX for a decade.

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.

Concerning AKREX less financials and more tech, this statement was taken from M* analysis of November 2020. Unlike many computer generated summaries, this was a real analysis of changes there. I invest in this fund for many years, and I am very happy about it, but yes indeed it is more slow now.

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.

Several emerging market and currency bets went wrong over the years.
Maintaining a low overall duration also didn't help.
As was mentioned, Mr. Hasenstab could be stubborn in holding losing positions for too long.

Same here - I had TGBAX and GIM off and on over the years but not held any of them in quite a long time. Just goes to show that even darling fund managers aren't forever regardless of who likes them .... which is a reality of life totally lost on the SA editorial team as it continues fawning over Cathie Wood at ARK, I might add.

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.

Yes-I invested in TPINX TGTRX and TBOAX years ago. I sold like you did. I liked the funds and never found a really good substitute!

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.

Thanks for comment. What happens. I read something (in the paper edition) and it strikes me as possibly relevant with a deeper significance. So, I Google some key words, locate the article and link it without without much explanation.
What I was thinking when I linked the article (probably obvious) is that the same issue - ultra low interest rates - that keeps investors buying equities at high valuations also impels them to buy riskier junk bonds yielding less than inflation. This article confirms that junk across the USA is also yielding less than inflation.
So TINA (There is no alternative) applies not just to equities, but to junk bonds - and probably many other assets. One wonders when and how this will all end. Other reading suggests that junk munis have been super hot all year and yield remarkably little - likely not adequate compensation for risk undertaken.
@carew88 - Surely you jest. I do recall several years ago when some credit unions had new car loan rates at 3% and lower. But that seemed to change. Paid cash for the car in 2018 rather than finance at what the CU was asking.

I wonder how much they saved by delaying the case for years. Reminds me of the tactics of a former WH occupant.

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

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

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