I still don't really see the point of investing in a fund where you're going to second guess everything your manager does.  It seems to me that the past results and the management philosophy of Fairholme (or any other manager) should speak for themselves.  I believe AJW puts this very well in his post. 

Personally, I do have an overweight to energy, but as I've indicated before this is for my own protection more than anything else.   I'm sure there are probably better values out there than energy, which is what I want my value managers to look for.  Oil very well could go down, and I'm actually surprised by how much it has gone up this year so far.  To be honest, what I'd like more than anything is if we could kick our addiction to oil and stop using it altogether, so the price goes to zero. 

But, that is why I am invested in energy stocks, not because I want the price of oil and other resources to go up so I make a killing, but to protect myself just in case they do.  At this point I don't see indications that oil stocks are in a bubble anywhere near to the extent that tech stocks were, for example (the commodity itself may be a different story).  All the same, I am perfectly willing to accept that I might suffer a loss-- that is the risk one takes by investing. 

Sorry, if it seems like I am rambling here.  Long story short, I don't see why if you have a personal concern or conviction, you don't just invest in a sector fund yourself.  Then you don't need to worry whether your managers share your personal belief on this one issue.  Also, the premise for investing in energy stocks is not really based on value investing principles, so it should be even less surprising to see value managers lightening up on their exposure to this sector. 

I invest with value managers to be value managers.  My energy position is just a separate insurance policy.