In my opinion:
There's not one
good fund in that list, and I am including
Vanguard Prime Money Market because there is no reason to have any kind of money market account when FDIC-insured internet savings accounts are paying 0.75%.
I believe that for every single fund in that list, if you wanted a fund in that category, you could find a good, solid, name-brand mutual fund or ETF with no load and with a significantly lower expense ratio. And I don't mean just at Vanguard, either.
This is not a recommendation, but, just for example, the expense ratio on Fidelity Contrafund (a classic example of a star-manager beat-the-market five-star stock fund) is "only" 0.74%.
And the funds don't make sense. This isn't some sophisticated DFA-like slice-and-dice portfolio, this is some weird... stuff. Full of weird things like bets on single regions (Pacific) and even single countries (China).
As for loads, read this and then guess when it was written:
Conventional mutual funds may be the only firms in town which, if they raised the price of their merchandise, would sell more of it. The reason is that built into the price of each share is a hefty sales commission that has proved, over the years, to be a powerful incentive to a legion of hard-selling salesmen….
No-load funds in general are no better than load funds in general, but the point is—as proved year after year by Forbes magazine and others—that they are no worse either. Why anyone would want to invest $1,000, say, in a load fund, knowing that only $920 of it will go to work for him, when he could invest the same amount in a no-load and see the whole $1,000 invested, is beyond us.
Highlight this text to read the answer more clearly: Charles and Susan Ellis, New York magazine, 1972.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.