Mulder,
Since you are considering VASVX, you might want to look into VMVAX for the following reasons.
1. VMVAX is more of pure mid cap value fund. 36% of VASVX is large cap.
2. VIMAX has superior 1 and 3 year returns and while Admiral shares have not not been in existence for 5 years, VMVIX has better 5 year returns.
3. VMVAX has an expense ratio of 0.09%. VASVX has an expense ratio of 0.41%.
While I think VASVX is a fine actively managed fund, I believe that is primarily attributable to Jim Barrow, its lead manager and secondarily, Mark Giambrone, both of Barrow, Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss. Jim will be 75 in the next few months and in preparation of his eventual retirement, Vanguard has has added two fund advisers (Donald Smith & Co and Pzena Investment Management), which I feel dilutes the good ideas from Barrow and Giambrone.
Mona

@Mulder420; Yes, even Tom's brother Bob Perkins, a friend of mine for many years, would say its time to go. Bob got into the business with the Omni Fund, which then became Berger Small-Cap Value Fund which was owned by Kansas City Southern Railroad and eventually sold to Janus. For your information, I've linked some MCV Funds ranked by U.S. & World Report.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/mid-cap-value?int=9c0d08
Janus History:
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/janus-capital-group-inc-history/

He's been "Bond King" for Years, public (investors) just now catching on...smart man

FYI: Gundlach’s main mutual fund, the $45.6 billion DoubleLine Total Return Bond Fund, is at the top of its class as it marks its fifth anniversary on April 6. It’s bested all 235 competitors in the U.S. intermediate bond fund category since inception, according to Morningstar Inc. In the previous five years, the TCW Total Return Bond Fund then-managed by Gundlach ranked second
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-01/gundlach-tops-peers-at-five-years-as-caution-belies-image

As I've said, I don't think some of the large cap biotech is expensive and Gilead, at under 10x forward p/e, is a value.
I do think though that some of the small names that maybe do not have a drug but have a really promising pipeline have run up too much. Bluebird Bio, which this fund is shorting, is a good example. +337% last year w/no earnings. That said, I think what concerns me in terms of shorting is that there's no guarantee that these names can't run further or much further or if they are successful with a treatment that's game changing. Trying to make valuation calls in this market over the last few years has often proved to be a mistake.
130/30 is an alternative strategy that's never really appealed to me (no particular reason), but this fund has done reasonably well.
Given the nature of the fund, I wouldn't be surprised if the E.R. was higher than it is.

FYI: Below is an updated look at the current makeup of the global stock market by country. Using Bloomberg data, we’ve constructed a table showing the percentage of global market cap that each country (the largest 25) currently makes up. We also show where the percentages stood at the end of 2014, five years ago, and ten years ago.
In analyzing the table, you’ll see that the US stock market makes up 36% of world market cap. This is down 1.48 percentage points since the start of the year, up 5.6 percentage points over the last five years, and down 5.11 percentage points over the last ten years
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/which-countries-control-the-global-stock-market/

After 5 years of bull market finding value is a real challenge. Growth funds will outperform till we hit bear market. After that value invstment will shine again, as it did during first years of bull market.

An alternate possibility: investors won't tolerate real value investing. There are probably two hallmarks of the deep value investor; that is, of the investor who's after the "value premium" found in the academic research. First, they're willing to buy shares of firms that are either disasters or disastrously misunderstood, and then hold them for the 3-5 years that it might take for the corporation to correct its path or for other investors to realize that they'd been misjudging it. Second, they're willing to buy nothing when there's nothing to buy.
Jeremy Grantham calls it "career risk." Value investors tend to get fired before deep value investments play out, so they don't make those investments.
As a result, most value investors are "relative value" guys: fulled invested, often buyers of "the best of a bad lot." Here's a quick test of my guess: I used Morningstar's fund screener to identify all US stock funds in the "value" equity box then looked at (1) where their portfolio centroid - on Morningstar's stylebox grid, it's the black dot representing the placement of the heart of the portfolio from micro to mega and deep value to rocket growth - was and (2) how much cash they had.
574 value funds. I picked the first fund listed on each of the first 15 pages of results. Here they are:
AAM/Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth: value/blend border, 6% cash
American Beacon The London Co Inc Eq: value/blend border, 6% cash
Artisan Small Cap Value: value/blend border, 7% cash
Boston Partners All Cap Value: value/blend border, 0% cash
Columbia Dividend Income: value/blend border, 3% cash
Delaware Mid Cap Value: value/blend border, 0% cash
Dunham Alternative Income: value/blend border, 3% cash
Fidelity Advisor® Value: value/blend border, 5% cash
Franklin Balance Sheet Investment: value/deep value border, 10% cash
Great-West Putnam Equity Income: value/blend border, 2% cash
Hennessy Large Value: middle of the value box, 0% cash
Invesco Exchange: value/blend border, 1% cash
JPMorgan Value Advantage: value/blend border, 8% cash
Manning & Napier Equity Income: middle of the value box, 2% cash
Nationwide US Small Cap Value: value/blend border, 0% cash.
Of a sample of 15 value funds, just one is positioned to invest in the sorts of deep value stocks that most of the research isolates.
There are just two self-proclaimed "deep value" equity options: Towle Deep Value TDVFX (value/deep value border, 2% cash) and Deep Value E T F DVP (solidly deep value, 0% cash). Of the funds we've covered, only Pinnacle Value PVFIX (deep value, 43% cash) strikes me as seriously pursuing the value premium: Mr. Deysher buys only when a stock is at historic lows but the business seems sound, which leaves him with investors' disdain and the best risk ratios (Sortino, Martin and so on) around.
For what thought fodder that offers,
David

FYI: Conditions were nearly perfect for municipal bonds last year, leading to sizable returns. Perfection never lasts, though, and managers of municipal-bond funds are forecasting modest returns in upcoming years.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_27801993/municipal-bond-fund-returns-will-be-muted-this

At my age, the odds are good that "forever" may present itself sometime within the next 30 years. So, I'll divide "forever" into 3 equal time frames:
Looking 10 years forward from today -- after thinking about it for a while -- I decided I would probably take a chance on active management outside the Vanguard shop. From a short list including WHGIX, BERIX, GLRBX, and FPACX, I went with FPACX despite its large asset size. (I was pleased to learn from @Tampabay that I won't be alone on that tropical island!)
Looking forward for both 20 and 30 years, I will stick with index funds and VIMSX...I buy in to the mid-cap "sweet spot" argument and figure that the short term noise will get cancelled out over 20 years or more. If not, I will have bigger things to worry about than the size of my portfolio!

@Junkster - If you were to put a gun to my head and force me to own only one fund for 30 years or longer, I guess it would be PRPFX (assuming continuation of management and fee structure, which is unlikely). I know we disagree on that and your comment was intended tongue-in-cheek.
Yes, many other investments, including junk bonds and the S&P, will outperform that fund over time. No argument there. But, assuming the economy goes through 4, 5 or more different cycles over that 30+ year period (inflationary, deflationary, stagnation, rising rates, falling rates, etc.) I like the fund as one that will not scare the hell out of a conservative investor during those cycles and will at least keep pace with inflation.
The original concept behind PRPFX (which I believe is still valid) was that it is designed to preserve purchasing power over a variety of market cycles and economic conditions (not to make you filthy rich). The fact it has gone nowhere for several years now does not concern me. We could argue about the current inflation rate - but officially, anyway, it's below the Fed's 2% target range. The fund represents about 8% of my investments. We presently take annual IRA distributions - but never from PRPFX. As a percentage of investments, therefore, it is expected to grow over time.
Regards

@MFO Members: VWELX for 86 years @8.33% !
Regards,
ted

@Junkster - re: PRPFX
I've never owned that fund. I've looked at it once or twice but never got it, 'it' being why I would own this. However, if the markets were to experience another 2008-like dumping it might be the one everyone wished they had chosen. Different times, different market cycles, different goals all go into the thought process.
I'd like to think that I would own any of the six funds I currently do for the next 10 years but if I had to choose just one it would be POAGX. Ask me again in a few weeks or even next week.

Not Knowing what the U.S. stock market will do FOREVER, think I would mix in bonds (debt) and use VWIAX, take my *8% year, double every 9 years and have plenty of money for bananas and a couple of native girls....thinking Bud and golf would not be possible

@junkster, several years of lagging performance has soured the sentiment on this board.

A few years ago when this question was posed the overwhelming consensus was PRPFX.

@Hank,
Agree with what you said. Vanguard, however, is not a public trade company and is owned by the shareholders like you and I. so there is less concern on conflict of interest.
Over the years our family's approach have evolved and index funds constituted over 70% of our portfolios. In certain asset classes or sectors, however, active management has provided (at least in our case) some alpha over their respective benchmarks. Ones I am referring to are T. Rowe Price Health Care and Vanguard Health Care, two stellar funds we held in IRAs.

Future $ value calculator.
observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-will-1-be-worth-in-future.html
For those who have access Financial Engines, it provides more detailed computation based on historical inflation rates (at least 40 years), returns of various asset classes, and expect outcomes of asset allocation one chooses.

I suspect that "forever" is longer than 10 years. I wouldn't want to leave an actively managed fund on auto pilot for that long. So, I would go with an index fund. Comparing VTSMX, NAESX, VFINX, and VIMSX back to VIMSX's date of birth for both tax free and taxable returns makes me pick VIMSX over NAESX by a hare for a forever fund...though many index fund "experts" would argue it should be a small value fund like VISVX instead.

@Anna: "If you were stranded on an island for years, what is the one mutual fund you would own?" SEA very clever !
Regards,
ted
Regards,