With retirement, I had planned to let this fund manage my money for the next 20 to 35 years. I'm concerned that a new single manager has been assigned. While I trust my judgment for a few years, I know it will decline.
What's up here? Vanguard rarely relies on a single manager. The fund had some mediocre years, but it was still a M* 4* fund on M*.
GMO says foreign and/or international funds have the best 7 yr prospects, but the January rally may have changed that assessment.
While I would like to follow GMO's recommendations, I don't have the resources to engage their services.
Suggestions appreciated.

Hi guys: As @hank noted ... Here is how Old_Skeet rolls and manages a consolidated portfolio of 49 funds. My thinking is that if you can't manage what you have then you've got to many funds. Being a prior corporate credit manager for a regional distribution company I had to have a receivable system in place to manage a fairly large customer base. Thus, I developed my sleeve management system to help manage my family's investments. Through the years it has worked fairly well. You can read more about this below.
Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 03/01/2019
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, then there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to twelve funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system. The matrix system is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. In addition, my rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% from my target allocation for both my income, growth & income and growth areas while I generally let cash float.
Consolidated Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weightings follow. They are cash area 15%, income area 35%, growth & income area 35% and growth & other asset area 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R) or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis.
Currently, my INVESTMENT FOCUS is to increase my portfolio's income stream through positioning new money into income generating assets while letting equities run on the high side to their upper threshold limit.
Target Asset Allocation (Balanced Towards Income): Cash 20%, Income 40%, G&I 30% & Growth 10%
Consolidated Master Portfolio Asset Allocation: Cash 16%, Income 39%, G&I 32% & Growth 13%
Rebalance Action Needed: Decrease Growth Area 1% and Increase Income Area 1%
CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
Investment Cash Sleeve ... Money Market Funds: AMAXX, GBAXX, DTGXX, PCOXX, CD Ladder(A) &
Cash Savings(A)
INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: CTFAX(A), GIFAX, LBNDX(A), NEFZX, PONAX(A) & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, BAICX, DIFAX(A), FISCX(A), FKINX, ISFAX(A), JNBAX, PGBAX & PMAIX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX & EADIX(A)
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, FBLAX, FRINX(A), HWIAX & LABFX
GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
Miscellaneous, Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PCLAX & PGUAX
Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.

"Around this time last year ... the Republican agenda was intact."
@Ted - you put this in play
The article continues ... "All that changed in the last three months of the year.   ...[Elaine Stokes] says 'We went from a Republican-led agenda to a mixed Congress with stalemate situations '"
What was that agenda that became stalemated only after September? Serious question. I get nervous when managers let their politics drive their investing.
According to National Review (Jan 2018),

At the White House, infrastructure is the big idea. ...
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan keeps talking up welfare reform: ... He also says that reform of Medicare and Social Security is on his wish list, although he does not see it happening this year.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, says action on welfare is unlikely but suggests that bipartisan legislation on immigration and financial regulation might be possible.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/worthwhile-republican-agenda-2018/
That was January. In April, CNBC's headline was: Trump keeps calling for major legislation, but Congress isn't listening – especially with midterms coming.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/03/trump-congress-dont-expect-big-legislation-in-2018.html
It's one thing to have hopes (of whatever political persuasion), it's another for a fund manager to look at a 2018 Congress that was dysfunctional and believe that only now has it become stalemated.
Especially since much of the major 2018 legislation was bipartisan, e.g. sanctioning of Russia, criminal justice reform, opioid crisis response act. Not to mention the farm bill that passed with wide support once a provision to restrict food stamps was pulled out.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/25/a-productivity-scorecard-for-115th-congress/

I have 5 regular funds and 6 ETFs, and a very conservative AA at 35/65.
I am spread across the global equity market and the domestic bond market (no long term and no junk) with maybe 10% in foreign bonds. I could dump 3-4-5 of the funds and still be as diversified, and still maintain my AA.
But everything is working so I'll just leave it alone.

FYI: A reader recently raised an important question: Does an investor really need to own a lot of funds, or, can one still expect to obtain good results with a much more limited number of funds, or perhaps, even with as few as one? More specifically, it seems, he was indirectly questioning the need in my last Model Portfolios (Oct. '18) for so many funds (15 stock funds and 11 bond funds to be exact). Even my new "Recommended" stock and bond fund listings (see below), which now replace my Model Portfolios, now show 20 funds altogether.
Great question! Let's be honest - it would be highly difficult, and most likely unneccesary, for most investors to acquire each and every one of my recommended funds. (Even I don't own all 26 of the Oct. '18 funds, although I do own all of the 20 funds listed below. By way of explanation, I have been at this for more than 2 decades and once I find a fund I am satisfied with, I rarely close it out, thus leading to perhaps too many funds - yes, I admit it.)
Regards,
Ted
http://funds-newsletter.com/mar19-newsletter/mar19_new.htm

@JohnN: The Hertz Bond is a slam dunk some small capital appreciation, bought at slight discount, plus a 7.375 yield who could ask for anything more.
Regards,
Ted

FYI: I'm very happy being out of the market, although I must admit its hard not to be trading !
Regards,
Ted
74.82%: 4 CD (3-6-9-12 Months)
18.41%: Funds (PONCX 12.37% - MVRXX 6.04%
6.74%: 50 Hertz 7.375% 1/15/21 Bonds
03%: Cash ( Morgan Stanley Bank Account)

I have a question as to how/where David got his numbers for the cash holdings for funds in 15/15 funds update piece? In my research, the Artisan Thematic fund doesn't have 30% in cash but instead less than 10% and the FMI International doesn't have 59% in cash.

Translation: "If you're annoyed by these fees, just buy OUR funds!"
What a lame non-response response by Fido.

From Fidelity Monitor & Insight:
"As we went to press, The Wall St. Journal is reporting that an“obscure fee” charged by Fidelity to third-party fund companies for the right to distribute their offerings on Fidelity’s Funds Network platform, has caught the attention of federal regulators. Of central concern is whether a purported fee of 0.15% is being absorbed by the
fund companies themselves, or if it’s being passed to fund shareholders in the form of higher, undisclosed fees. Note: This matter does not affect Fidelity funds. "

From Fidelity Monitor & Insight:
"As we went to press, The Wall St. Journal is reporting that an“obscure fee” charged by Fidelity to third-party fund companies for the right to distribute their offerings on Fidelity’s Funds Network platform, has caught the attention of federal regulators. Of central concern is whether a purported fee of 0.15% is being absorbed by the
fund companies themselves, or if it’s being passed to fund shareholders in the form of higher, undisclosed fees. Note: This matter does not affect Fidelity funds. "

FYI: When Ed Perks graduated from Yale University in 1992, he packed up his Mitsubishi hatchback and drove from his childhood home in Levittown, N.Y., to San Francisco. The fact that he didn’t have a job waiting for him in California did little to temper his enthusiasm. “The San Francisco area really stood out to me as an opportunity in the early ’90s because of the community that existed here in the finance industry,” says Perks, who is 48. “You had smaller investment banks and hedge funds, but also established asset managers
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/income-hunting-ignore-the-market-and-focus-on-companies-says-this-fund-manager-51551445200?refsec=bonds
M* Snapshot FKIQX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/fkiqx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot FKIQX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/fkiqx
FKINX Is Rank #6 In The (30%-50%-E) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/allocation-30-to-50-equity/franklin-income-fund/fkinx

FYI: Around this time last year, Elaine Stokes, co-manager of the $11 billion Loomis Sayles Bond Fund, thought the stage was pretty well set for an economic upturn. Most major economic indicators were pointing upward, the Republican agenda was intact, and a recession was the last thing on most people’s minds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/bright-lining-43471.html?print
M* Snapshot LSBRX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/LSBRX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot LSBRX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/lsbrx
LSBDX Is Ranked #15 In The (MB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/multisector-bond/loomis-sayles-bond-fund/lsbdx

@TheShadow - You are on the ball!
I sold $25k of STATX on Thursday, 2/28/2019, and the funds are in my Vanguard settlement account today. It looks to be an orderly closing so far ...

Too easy a charge to make. There were puhlenty of mainstream articles from 20+ years ago, and older, saying that 'here are 5 (or whatever) consistently excellent funds that appear poised to do well over the longterm future'. DODGX, FCNTX, FLPSX, TRBCX, and surely some from Vanguard. And others, but those are in memory. I know because I already owned some and followed their coverage, and w/ OCD about it (then, less so now) was always on the lookout for future adds.

Almost everyone can run a screen that can beet the market looking backwards. Can anyone you tell me how many of them will beat the market in the next 5 years or even 3 years?
Often money managers that had great records with small amounts of money under management struggle with popularity rises and more assets flow in. Other manager take note as well. They analyze the investments and strategy of the manager and try to replicate the success and suddenly too many fishers are fishing in the same pond and alpha is gone.
You know there are incubation funds as well. Fund companies incubate funds for 3 or 5 years and if they are successful they are opened to bigger public. So, the previous record is incorporated to the fund that almost never benefited it. There are a lot of tricks the fund industry is playing to show alpha but rearview investing can take so much. Future is uncertain as ever.

Related. Think Ted post this article last yr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kiplinger.com/slideshow/investing/T052-S001-10-funds-beat-the-market-another-decade.html
Most mf have 1 2% annual fees will put large dink in long term returns - long term superior returns may not be possible

@AndyJ- Oh, yes... some 65 years and many floods. They were a lot more fun when I was a kid. The flood in '95 was the last straw for the old original house. We had to tear that one down and then built the new place. And yes, it's still beautiful: the view over the Russian River from our rear deck hasn't changed at all since I was a kid. Timeless. As long as there's no fire, that is.

Fidelity announced a doubling of its NTF ETFs from 250 to 500 immediately after Schwab announced a doubling from 250 to 500.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fidelityinvestments-etf/fidelity-schwab-expand-commission-free-etfs-to-over-500-idUSKCN1Q12BZ
As of today, per its press release, "Fidelity is [still] in the process of expanding its commission -free ETF platform for individual investors and advisors to include more than 500 ETFs". Its ETF page reports 357 ETFs are NTF, only Fidelity and some iShares.
The only thing that Fidelity did immediately was add some iShares. It's nowhere near the 500 that FA Mag said was coming by today.
Schwab has just posted its 501 NTF ETFs:
https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/investment_help/investment_research/etf_research/etfs.html?&path=/Prospect/Research/etfs/overview/oneSourceETFs.asp
Meanwhile, Vanguard Brokerage Services has been selling 1800 ETFs without a transaction fee for the past six months. That's supposed to be 90% of the 2000 ETFs on the market.
https://pressroom.vanguard.com/news/Press-Release-Vanguard-Launches-Commission-Free-ETFs-082118.html

A little housekeeping:
Skeet mentioned a number of Vanguard funds using investor class tickers. These are now closed to retail investors; look for the admiral class shares. For example, instead of VIGRX, use VIGAX.
@STB65 writes that PRIDX suggests that one can still get in if one can meet the min. I don't know how (with the usual exceptions of grandfathered 401k plans and the like). It is closed to new investors even going directly through TRP (as of April 2, 2018):
https://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=PRIDX
(See also Shadow's post above.)
That is indeed a soft close (since existing investors can add money), but for new investors it might as well be a hard close.
I'm wondering about the statement that "VWIGX will always be open." It's not as though Vanguard doesn't close funds. See VDIGX. Unlike, say, the Primecap run funds, VDIGX is closed even to Flagship customers. Why couldn't VWIGX likewise be closed in the future?
It's true that Vanguard often adds more subadvisors to increase capacity of its funds rather than close them. By that thinking though, VWIGX should be even more likely to close, since Vanguard dropped the number of subadvisors for the fund from three to two in mid 2016.
Regarding using global funds to let managers put money where it can be used best: I like the idea of letting mangers do what I'm paying them to do, i.e. manage. But ISTM that global funds generally (a) have a big hometown bias (50%+ in US) and (b) keep their US/foreign ratios fairly steady. There may be exceptions of course, which means digging through older annual statements to see if they actually do move assets in and out of the US.
Where I think the "delegate to manager" may work better with foreign funds is in deciding which foreign countries to invest in. That is why I prefer broad based foreign funds. Also, a few of these funds more than dabble in EM, so there are some funds that can be used to truly span the globe. Notably, VWIGX has nearly 1/4 of assets in EM.

Nice catch. It's not unusual to see VCs get shares of a private company at a discount, but I've never seen something like that done with seed money for a mutual fund. (That's not to say it's not done, but it's not something I've run across.)
I notice in the same SAI (dated March 29, 2018, supplemented Sept 21, 2018) that it has two controlling (> 25% share) owners: Interactive Brokers (56.92%) and Institutional Secured Credit LLC (29.66%).
Not unusual for brokerages to have a sizeable stake (though rarely this large) in a fund. But that's because they have legal title ("street name") to the shares that their customers own. In this case, Interactive Brokers doesn't sell STATX, so what's it doing owning over half the fund?
That 29.66% is (through a series of companies) completely owned by "Mr. Abarbanel who is the CEO of the fund and owns 100% of the Advisor." (This includes the 10,000 shares purchased at $10/share.)
In a little touch of irony, Institutional Secured Credit is located on Painted Mirage Road, at the same address as the fund and the fund advisor.