”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

VWINX current duration is 8 years. So if rates increase 2% the bonds will drop 16%, taking the fund down 11%.
The problem with comparisons to the 1980s is the SP500 started at very low PEs, so a lot of the return in VWINX was from the 30% equity portion. From 12/79 to 3/80 before the equity blast off VWINX lost 13%
I would think you need something to hedge the rate increases if they come, along with faltering economic growth. Maybe real assets as mentioned, but that implies economic growth, which would also support equites.
"this time it is different" may in fact be true today , as they has never been a comparable time with sky high equities valuations and sky high bond prices
I worry that standard 30/70 funds will do poorly when both bonds and stocks get hit badly

I've held AKREX/AKRIX for a number of years and am very pleased with it. It's all about perception and expectation, I believe. If you want a LCG fund with FAANG stocks and other go-go stocks, then AKREX/AKRIX is not the vehicle.
AKREX has performed superbly outside of 2020, when it was in the 87th percentile (-15% of LCG), BY FAR its worst relative performance.
Unfortunately, 2020 skews its multi-year relative category performance ranking. Its annual ranks range from 1% to 29%; YTD 28%. Not bad as far as i am concerned.
Its ten-year rank is in the 17th percentile (20.04%), again good with me. As Graust stated, its a good diversifier for other growth funds. I'll go a step further and say it's a good diversifier for most LCV and LCB funds, particularly S&P500 indexes which are top-heavy with FAANG.
One last point, its Risk/Reward profile for all time frames is exceptional; it's also a GO fund. That's not so say there aren't better funds available, but AKREX/AKRIX is a fund to consider.
Just one man's opinion.
A good discussion, keep the thread alive.
Matt

"But if you want to game the system, why stop at $25K/account? Vanguard allows shares to be moved from one account to another existing (not new) account. Sure, it took me over an hour on the phone with Vanguard years ago when I converted some shares in kind from a traditional to a Roth IRA (with existing positions in both accounts), but it can be done."
I do not own any shares in any Primecap managed fund.

Now you ask, what prevents me from opening additonal accounts at Vanguard with different account numbers and put $25K of Primecap and $25K of Capital Opportunity in each account, each year?
My answer is nothing.

My answer is that pretty much any fund from any fund company can reject a purchase order that it chooses. Sometimes this is phrased as "a trade that would be disruptive", sometimes not.

Each Vanguard fund reserves the right to reject any purchase request—including exchanges from other Vanguard funds—without notice and regardless of size. For example, a purchase request could be rejected because the investor has a history of frequent trading or if Vanguard determines that such purchase may negatively affect a fund’s operation or performance.

https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/p059.pdf?2210168823
Given that Vanguard has limited the amounts one can invest so that purchases don't negatively affect a fund, it's hardly a stretch for Vanguard to consider gaming their rules disruptive.
But if you want to game the system, why stop at $25K/account? Vanguard allows shares to be moved from one account to another existing (not new) account. Sure, it took me over an hour on the phone with Vanguard years ago when I converted some shares in kind from a traditional to a Roth IRA (with existing positions in both accounts), but it can be done.
So open two accounts with $25K, move the shares from one account to the other, then convert the $50K to Admiral shares. Even if you get so far as to open multiple accounts of the same type (e.g. two taxable accounts) in a closed fund, I have my doubts whether Vanguard will then let you take the next step.
Side note: Fidelity once initially rejected a purchase order of mine for a Fidelity fund because it might have been disruptive. (Upon review, Fidelity allowed it to go through.) So this is not a matter of Vanguard being different from other families.

AKREX also lagged large growth in 2020 because it is less exposed to tech than other LG funds (20% in tech per a quick check at Fidelity). And I think this has been generally true over the years…..AKREX finds growth companies mostly outside of tech and holds them for years (low turnover). Good diversifier to other large growth funds, IMHO.

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.

“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.

Flagship customers cannot initiate a position in VPMAX by investing money because that fund (share class) requires a minimum of $50,000. Even flagship customers can invest only $25K/year. However, flagship customers can open accounts in VPMCX.
Anyone, whether flagship customer or not, can initiate a position in VPMAX by converting $50K+ from VPMCX. So an investor with an existing VPMCX account, or a flagship customer opening a new VPMCX account, could add $25K each year to VPMCX for a couple of years. Then, assuming the fund did not lose value, they could convert their shares to VPMAX.

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

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.

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