We use TIBIX, MALOX, and RPGAX. Expenses for these are 0.86%, 0.79%, and 0.98%, all below 1%, which is ok for an active allocation fund. For expenses, look for NET expense ratio, since this is the actual expense investors pay. It is always available in the fund's annual report. RPGAX was not around in 2008, but the other two struggled even though they were better than the S&P.

Oh yeah, not a good call on my part 5y ago, it turned out. Ain't hindsight wonderful?
It did not occur to me likely that the Jameses in Ohio and McGregor at Oakmark would quite flatten, if not slump, as they did. I guess I would stand by my "automatically prefer" locution, though.
As for the AO_ approach, it also did not occur to me likely that diversification would fail to pay off as it did.
2013 is what did it for the D&C groupthink work, that and whatever the heck they bought / held last Nov 3. So good on them.
Still, as noted above, the 10y performance, if one is a believer in that period as some sort of standard, is problematic given their method constancy. As is that odd Aug 15 - Aug 16 slump.

Again, about keeping DODGX and M* accountable for a clear standard.
The webpage of D&C states (as of June 30), 10 year returns 5.89% - compared with S&P 7.18%. Let's please not search for excuses for underperformance. Without discussing the yearly tax cost of 0.98%.
In relation to the fund performance during the past 5-years, more volatile funds that missed in the downside in 2007-2008, typically have better returns in the more recent period. For this reason I tend not to rely on 5-year returns.
What is different about DODGX (in relation to other outstanding funds!) is that its returns, after the 07-08 underperformance, were not adequate for the fund to catch up with the S&P.

+1
In order to get a full reading of this fund's performance, you have to look back 10 years, not 3 or 5. It's clear to see that they dropped the ball big time and never recovered to keep pace with the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. I held the fund during the disastrous 2007-2009 and dumped it upon a partial recovery. When I bought the fund, it was my understanding that they would hold up better on the downside; they did not. Quite the contrary. *M can talk about its "deep investment team" and "decisive value approach" all it wants. Currently, *M shows the fund's risk as very high. I guarantee it was showing as lower on *M when the credit crisis hit. Clearly, *M misread the fund as well. If you look at the fund's trailing SD, you will see it at 18.11 over 10 years, then it drops drastically to 11.41 at 5 years. You think something changed in their investment strategy during that time? Lessons learned.

"Huh? Gosh, the three ]LCV funds] I moved to long ago from DODGX (before placing everything LCV in DSEEX): PRBLX. YACKX, and TWEIX."
What is long ago? DODGX was in the top quintile for 2009 and top fiftieth (second percentile) in 2011 and 2012. D&C funds often go through multi year funks and multi year spurts. 2008 is an important benchmark, as is 2015 for value funds. (By that latter metric, DSEEX looks good, at least so far.)
If one wants a smooth ride, shorter term, D&C funds are not the way to go. M* seemed to agree, saying that DODGX had enviable long term results. But (assuming that the long term market trend is upward) there is a problem with long term investors placing too much emphasis on the down years.
For example, one investor here five years ago almost to the day (Aug 2012) wrote about another D&C fund (DODBX):
"it certainly seems to have improved, but (recent, tempting) past performance does not etc. I cannot imagine why anyone would automatically prefer it now over Oakbx, Glrbx, and even AOR / AOM, my two 'new' favorite ETFs. "
Here's the five year chart comparing these five funds.
(Data per M* as of 7/17/17) Growth of $10K:
DODBX: $18,358.73
OAKBX: $15,848.45
AOR: $14,959.24
AOM: $13,422.89
GLRBX: $13,366.85
Now I'm not suggesting that one compare any of these funds with the S&P 500 (or S&P 1500); they're a different type of fund and the comparison wouldn't be meaningful. Likewise, I wouldn't go comparing value funds with blend (e.g. SPY) or growth funds, especially over the past decade when growth had a decided advantage. Heck, if I were to do that I'd just dump everything into a growth fund - even the average (median) LCG fund (NMFAX) returned 7.48% over the past decade, beating the S&P 500.
D&C, like many peers (and also unlike many other peers) completely blew 2008, getting caught in a value trap - continuing to hold on the way down. The questions are: how likely is another 2008, has D&C modified its investment process since then, is short term (e.g. 2015) or even prolonged underperformance acceptable in exchange for longer term gains? Different people have different answers.

RPGAX ;has performed well and Fidelity now has it available NTF. However the ER is very high @1.15. When I look at RPBAX which carries an of ER .64, I think I would do better by adding a little more international stock and foreign bond to it. But don't know what I might add to take place of the Blackstone Hedge fund Solutions
I am seeking opinions on best way to mimic RPGAX at a lower cost.

I own QRSVX, FOSCX, and MSCFX in this space. Queens Road is a value fund, while the other two ride the line between growth and blend.
5 year annual returns of: 11.11%, 14.2%, 15.5%
QRSVX is pretty conservative if that is what you are looking for, but it still has an ulcer index of 10 and had a max draw down of 42% in 2009. It is in risk group 4. So, yeah, maybe protection is the wrong word, but the conservative positioning of the fund results in holding some cash (currently around 16%), and avoiding overpaying for stocks. It has had the same manager since 2002! FWIW

Down Market Performance Bar Chart on the QRSVX website

Again, about keeping DODGX and M* accountable for a clear standard.
The webpage of D&C states (as of June 30), 10 year returns 5.89% - compared with S&P 7.18%. Let's please not search for excuses for underperformance. Without discussing the yearly tax cost of 0.98%.
In relation to the fund performance during the past 5-years, more volatile funds that missed in the downside in 2007-2008, typically have better returns in the more recent period. For this reason I tend not to rely on 5-year returns.
What is different about DODGX (in relation to other outstanding funds!) is that its returns, after the 07-08 underperformance, were not adequate for the fund to catch up with the S&P.

FYI: Dennis Gartman is the man behind The Gartman Letter, a daily newsletter discussing global capital markets. For almost 30 years, The Gartman Letter has tackled the political, economic and social trends shaping the world's markets. ETF.com recently caught up with Gartman to discuss the latest developments in the financial markets.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/gartmans-favorite-trades-right-now?nopaging=1

@msf
>> if you are looking for a large cap value fund, what do you feel is a better one than DODGX?
Huh? Gosh, the three I moved to long ago from DODGX (before placing everything LCV in DSEEX): PRBLX. YACKX, and TWEIX.
D&C have roared back only chiefly since last November, with notable outperformance, by my read of their 10k-growth graph.
@sven
>> For sure we have different point of view and personal experience.
Not sure what this was in response to, or even that it's true, but I concur in your assessment of D&C.

"In addition, the management never owed up to mistakes made either in interviews or shareholder reports."
About its 2008 performance, D&C president "Olivier says, 'it's hard to defend our investments in the banks. We misjudged the situation.'"
Kiplinger, What Went Wrong at Dodge and Cox, Jan 31, 2009.
Admittedly D&C does a lot of hemming and hawing, but it doesn't deny making mistakes (it just often blames them on unforeseen circumstances). I do recall D&C taking making some changes to contain risk after the 2008 debacle (maybe limiting industry concentration?), but that may be the rare exception that proves the rule.

This large cap value fund outpaced the S&P 500 Value Index over the last 10 years (5.78% annualized vs. 5.01%) as well as over the past fifteen years (9.56% vs. 8.51%), 5 years (16.72% vs. 14.01%), 3 years (8.83% vs. 7.98%) and 1 year (25.45% vs. 13.37%). All data as of 7/17/17, per M*.
If you don't want a value fund, that's fine. Invest in a blend or growth fund. But if you are looking for a large cap value fund, what do you feel is a better one than DODGX?
If one finds indexing attractive, one might consider VSPVX ( your index company of preference appears to be Standard and Poors)? Or perhaps VRVIX (M* seems to like comparing DODGX against the Russell 1000 Value index). Note that these both have had returns falling short of DODGX. (FWIW, DODGX has better 5 year performance than any 5* LCV fund as rated by M*, so its performance does come at the expense of some extra risk - hence its lower 4* rating).
Lipper rates DODGX a 5 as a large cap value fund for consistent return and for total return. The fund drops to 4 on consistent return, which, like the M* rating, suggests that the fund is not the very best LCV fund around for short term investing.

I am trying to understand how a fund can be considered outstanding when for the last 10 years it could not keep pace with the S&P, for the last 15 years was ahead of the index by only 0.46%, with volatility higher than the benchmark - for most of the period. If this is considered 'enviable long-term results", then indexing is indeed attractive.

+1

I am trying to understand how a fund can be considered outstanding when for the last 10 years it could not keep pace with the S&P, for the last 15 years was ahead of the index by only 0.46%, with volatility higher then the benchmark - for most of the period.
If this is considered 'enviable long-term results", then indexing is indeed attractive.

>> the time to be in PRPFX is when stocks are heading south and the metals are heading north.
If that happens.
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/885926494937128960
some of the responses are good

FYI: U.S. equities fluctuated on Monday as investors geared up for a slew of earnings reports later this week.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-16/stocks-in-asia-poised-for-gains-before-china-data-markets-wrap
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN1A212A
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-hold-steady-as-investors-get-ready-for-big-earnings-week-2017-07-17/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/category/market-trend/stock-market-today/
CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/17/us-stocks-big-earnings-week.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS?SITE=AP
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-07-17/your-evening-briefing
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Mixed
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Thanks LLJB,
Wasn't always the case, but in the past - maybe 20 years - they did come out with a way to own bullion thru an ETF.
BTW - You'll also need to come up with 10% worth of Swiss francs, some highly aggressive growth stocks, some real estate and some natural resource stocks to go with those other holdings. Than you'll need to rebalance once a year buying/selling among those assets - perhaps more often when one segment runs hot or cold. It can all be accomplished of course.
For simplicity, I'll sit on my chunk and see what happens. Converted to a Roth in January 2016. Believe that was near its recent bottom. Nice bounce since then. Am certainly not predicting success for this fund going foreward (and I don't give investment advice). But for diversification purposes I'm willing to hold both winners and laggards. There are many here who disagree with that "mix it up" approach and concentrate only on winners. I'd wish them "investing success" - except that they don't need any best wishes. They're excellent investors in their own right.
Thanks again for the informative posts & the reply.

@hank, the etfs I used for comparison were VTI for stocks, TLT for bonds and GLD for gold, so its physical bullion. For cash, portfolio visualizer has it's own version of cash, CASHX, which I don't think is a real fund, but the rate it earns in their model has to be based on a money market fund or a bank account, I'm not sure. In fact, portfolio visualizer has a pre-configured portfolio for Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio and I just compared that to PRPFX starting at the beginning of 2005.
According to Wikipedia, "the Permanent Portfolio mutual fund, however, is more complex than Browne's original concept and has six asset categories. The fund aims to invest in a fixed percentage of uncorrelated, asset categories to minimize risk in changing economic climates. These include 35% in government bonds, 25% in gold and silver bullion, 15% in growth stocks, 10% in cash and Swiss francs and 15% in energy, mining, and real estate stocks."
I certainly wouldn't want to put all my eggs in history's basket, but PRPFX has seen a lot more volatility in getting to what, at this point, is a worse return, at least in the last decade plus. My understanding of Browne's intent was to have a portfolio that would be profitable in any type of economic environment. In my simplistic way of looking at things that suggests less volatility and that's not what the fund has delivered. I have no idea which will do better in the future but considering the expense ratio together with the historical volatility, I'd far prefer a straightforward etf approach if I was going to invest in something like this.

failed? 'elevated downside capture' etc.
\\\ have come with elevated volatility and downside capture levels. This was evident during the financial crisis of 2007-09, and the fund also lagged in a volatile 2011. But the fund has bounced back: During the trailing five-year period ended June 2017, the fund’s 16.4% annualized gain outpaced the Russell 1000 Value’s 13.9% gain as well as 99% of its large-value peers.

I plead guilty to reading Swedroe but not the referenced study. If anybody did does this mean I should sell at the end of the quarter or the day before or the day after.Similarly do I buy 1 week after the quarter 3 days, 10 days or some other time.

An additional thought related to PRPFX. Harry Browne's simpler approach that this fund is based on, allocating 25% each to stocks, bonds, cash and gold, is easy to copy with far lower cost etfs and the historical performance has been better on both an absolute and risk-adjusted basis. Of course that's all history, but the guys who run this fund haven't shown that they're 'system' is any better than Browne's and whatever active management they've done certainly hasn't added enough value to justify their management fee. With only $2 billion of AUM they're still earning a management fee of $20 million each year. It's no wonder why we have 10,000 distinct funds chasing $30 Trillion of AUM according to Charles' update recently. Who wants to start a mutual fund? I'm totally confident I can do far better than these guys and charge far less.