Long-term (and hopefully even short-term) readers know that I am a big fan of index mutual funds. I love the low costs, broad diversification, low turnover, lack of manager risk, and fidelity to their investing strategy. Most importantly, I love that they generally perform better than actively managed mutual funds in the long run. However, I have never said that they will outperform ALL actively managed mutual funds going forward. There will always be at least a few winners. I had a reader post a comment recently that put this subject back to the front of my mind. The reader's conclusion from researching and posting a group of actively managed mutual funds that had outperformed the market was entirely wrong due to a few fundamental errors, but it was fun to see who the winners were.
Using Morningstar data, the reader had basically gone back to the year he graduated from high school, 1982, and looked at all the best performing stock mutual funds. The best one from 1982 to 2020 was the Fidelity Select Health Care Fund. His conclusion? That one should invest in health care stock stocks going forward. His errors were immediately obvious to anyone who has spent any significant amount of time in a book written by Jack Bogle.
- Only one health care fund outperformed the market. The second best health care fund over that time period underperformed an S&P 500 Index Fund.
- The list only included the winners. There were just 129 funds on the list. The data is severely affected by survivorship bias. Outperforming mutual funds generally don't close. How many mutual funds were there in 1982? Jack Bogle's Common Sense on Investing says there were 331. By 1991, 1 in 6 had gone. After 38 years, 3 out of 5 were gone. We're only looking at the top 39% of the funds that existed in 1982.
- There is no guarantee that past performance will persist. In fact, the data shows it is pretty unlikely.
- Performance data like this is severely influenced by the returns at the end of the time period.
However, I still found this reader's research very interesting. I just found it interesting for an entirely different reason! His list of the 129 survivors from 1982 showed that just 26 of them had outperformed the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (started in 1976). So of the 331 funds that existed in 1982 only 26, just 8%, outperformed the market. Which funds were they? Let's take a look. This shows what a $10,000 investment on July 1, 1982, would have grown to by the end of April 2020.
There are a few things worth noting about this list.
Remember this was a list of 129 funds. I'm just showing the top 27. So the 500 Index Fund isn't at the bottom of the list, it's actually near the top of the list.
- Of the 26 funds that outperformed the 500 Index Fund over this 38 year period, only 8 outperformed the index fund by more than 1% per year. 8 out of 331 is just 2.4%. Lots of manager risk, very little outperformance.
- Most of these funds have much higher turnover and thus lower tax efficiency than an index fund. So in a taxable account, the after-tax return for these funds is even worse. Just by way of comparison, let's take a look at the Columbia Acorn Fund. Morningstar reports a current turnover ratio of 101%. So on average, every stock in the fund is bought and sold every year. The 500 Index Fund has a turnover of 4%, meaning the stocks are sold on average every 25 years. You can imagine the comparative tax-efficiency and resulting tax drag on the Acorn fund returns.
- Many of these funds charge a load. That load is not taken into account in these returns. Granted, even an 8% load is not very large when averaged over 38 years, but it's not zero.
- I mentioned above that performance data of this type is severely influenced by the returns at the end of the time period. Over the last 5-10 years, Growth Stocks and Large Stocks have outperformed the overall market, despite the fact that over the long run Value Stocks and Small Stocks have outperformed the market. So it should be no surprise to see that most of these 26 winners were composed of Large Growth stocks. Remember that most tech stocks and health care stocks are also large or mid cap growth stocks. Of the 26 winners, 15 of them were Large Growth or Mid Cap Growth stock funds. Of the large blend funds (the ones most appropriate to compare to the 500 Index Fund), there were only 5 that outperformed the index, none by more than 1% per year. If you should be impressed with anything, it is the single Large Value fund on the list (Dodge & Cox), the single Small Blend fund on the list (Royco Pennsylvania), the single Utilities fund on the list (PGIM Jennison), and the two World funds on the list (American Funds New Perspective and Invesco Oppenheimer Global).
I think it is pretty clear that despite the fact that there turned out to be 26 winners here, that the correct a priori decision in 1982 would have been to simply invest in an index fund, but draw your own conclusions from this data.
10 Year Mutual Fund Data with Fidelity and Vanguard
As I pondered the above data, I thought it might be fun to look at some mutual fund screeners to see what could be gleaned from more recent data. Both Fidelity and Vanguard have mutual fund screeners on their websites, so on May 2nd, 2020, I went ahead and pulled up the list of Large Blend Funds. Now the performance data on both of these sites only goes back 10 years. But I ranked all of the funds by return over that ten year period.
Fidelity
The Fidelity site pulled up 526 Large Blend funds that have been in existence for the last 10 years. (Remember this data is skewed by survivorship bias as any fund that went out of business in the last ten years is not included in the data.) I ranked them top to bottom. There were 27 pages of funds on the list. The first 500 index fund was found at the bottom of the first page. Most of the second page was composed of index funds.
Which funds outperformed the 500 index fund? Well, there were 19 of them. 19 out of 526. Just 3.6%. After only 10 years the market had outperformed over 96% of the active managers, before taxes and ignoring survivorship bias. So which were the funds? Well, to make matters worse, many of them were simply various share classes of the same fund. There were really only 11 outperformers. Here they are (listing the best performing share class):
Yes, the Fidelity 500 fund outperformed the Vanguard fund over this time period by 0.02%. So I stopped the list there. Vanguard's list should look pretty similar.
Vanguard
Vanguard found 364 funds but would only let me display 250 of them, so I had to only look at the funds with a positive return over the last 10 years (there were apparently 114 large blend funds that did not have a positive return over the last decade.) Vanguard, like Fidelity, also apparently leaves some funds out. Vanguard's list had no Fidelity funds just as Fidelity's list left off many of the Vanguard index funds. Competitive business this. At any rate, here's the list of the winners over the last 10 years at Vanguard.
The lists are slightly different, presumably due to different methodologies such as using different share classes, including any load, and exact days. Plus some bias in excluding their main competitor's funds! But the fact is the lists pretty much agree with each other. There are eight winners that show up on both lists.
But you know what is really interesting? Not one of those 8 funds showed up in my reader's research. None of the 5 large blend funds that beat an index fund over the 38 year period also did so over the last 10 years. Even if I include the growth stock funds in the analysis, only a few of the winners made my readers 38-year list and my 10-year list. Here they are:
Of the 15 growth stock funds from my reader's initial 38-year outperformer list, only 7 beat the 500 index fund over the last 10 years, and only 3 of those beat a growth stock index fund, 1 by more than 1% per year. That fund was a tech fund, and it underperformed its equivalent index fund, the iShares US Technology ETF, over the last 10 years by over 1%. And remember that the 38 year period INCLUDES the 10 year period and in fact weights it heavily. If I looked at two completely separate time periods, there may be no overlap at all.
Repeat after me:
- Past performance does not indicate future results.
- Past performance does not indicate future results.
- Past performance does not indicate future results.
- Past performance does not indicate future results.
- Past performance does not indicate future results.
- Past performance does not indicate future results.
- Past performance does not indicate future results.
- Past performance does not indicate future results.
- Past performance does not indicate future results.
Repeat it until you believe it. Because it is true. And that's before correcting for survivorship bias. And before correcting for taxes. And before correcting for the cost of paying an advisor to pick you some winning mutual funds.
Dave Ramsey is fond of saying that it is easy to find “good growth stock mutual funds that will beat the S&P 500” and “get a 12% return.” And that you can easily get help doing that by hiring one of his endorsed mutual fund salesmen. That assertion does not stand up to the data. He readily acknowledges he is not a stock market expert and came into the financial space from the real estate side. But that's no excuse for ignoring data like this. And all long-term data looks like this.
The Stock (or Fund) Picker's Dilemma
So now, dear reader, if your stock portfolio is not composed entirely of low-cost index funds, you are faced with a dilemma.
If you are using actively managed mutual funds, why do you think you are going to be able to pick a winner, much less a winner in every asset class in your portfolio? Why would you gamble on such low-probability bets?
If you are trying to pick stocks yourself, why do you think you're going to be able to outperform the market when essentially not one of these folks was able to do so over the long run in any significant way? If you truly can pick stocks well enough to beat the market after the costs of doing so, why are you only managing your own money? Not only are you leaving billions on the table, but you're doing a disservice to your fellow investors.
If you will honestly track your returns, especially your after-tax, after-expense, after-the-value-of-your-time returns, you will soon become a committed index fund investor. There is no other reasonable approach. The data is overwhelming. If you want to invest money in some way where your effort and expertise have any chance of adding value to the equation, find an asset class besides the publicly traded equity markets to do it in. Perhaps small businesses, websites, or real estate.
What do you think? Are you surprised the list of winners is so small and so unlikely to repeat? If you are using actively managed mutual funds or picking your own stocks, why do you persist in doing so in the face of data such as this? How is that a good use of your time? Comment below!
That list of funds which beat the S&P 500 since 1982 brought up a different question for me. Where is the evidence that a value or small cap fund might beat a broad market (and slightly growth-biased) index like the S&P 500? If I understand the arguments behind factor investing they are that very long time periods are needed for a factor to shine but this 38 year period seems long by any standard yet none of the funds in that list that beat the S&P 500 uses the word “value” in its title (plenty use “growth) and “small” appears only once.
Also that 10 year mutual fund performance list looks a little low. My Vanguard account, which has mostly just held VFIAX but over the last 3 or so years been slightly hobbled by some additional international index funds, reports a 13.5% “rate of return” over the past 10 years. Vanguard uses an IRR method in reporting personal performance which accounts for when money actually arrives in the account as opposed to the growth of a set amount at the start period but that still seems like a large divergence. This S&P 500 return calculator with dividends reinvested also reports a 14.4% return over the past 10 years:
https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/
dude, check out this Paul Merriman talk for evidence of small value beating the SP500 for the past 30 years. He also gives a shoutout to WCI!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6SEeYwlaKw&feature=youtu.be
Yes, I am already familiar with Merriman’s position on small value and with Fama and French’s research. That’s why I’m asking the question. Why don’t any funds with those characteristics show up in this list of funds beating the S&P 500 over 38 years? The 10 year lists are limited to large blend funds as the search criteria but I didn’t see that as a limitation in the list of funds from the Reader.
The lack of small and value names may reflect both the relatively recent recognition of factor investing and their poor showing the last 10 years. The Rolf Banz paper that established the size factor was published in 1980. Likely there was not enough time for its significance to be recognized and a fund launched for the 1982 start date. The Fama French paper for their three factor (market/size/value) model was published in 1992.
Good point about the timing of the papers coming out on size and value as factors. It’s still surprizing to me that funds that focused on smaller companies or value aren’t apparent in long term outperformance lists like this one because “small cap” and “value” as categorizations for stocks or investing styles go back a long way, well before Morningstar published its Style Box in 1992. I think the idea of value investing dates to Graham & Dodd’s “Security Analysis” and stock capitalization categories, although the boundaries move with time, have also been around essentially forever.
Not sure there were any small value funds 38 years ago. Fama and French published in the 90s, less than 30 years ago. Vanguard’s fund was opened in 1998.
That’s certainly a risk of tilting to small and value factors. Maybe the premium doesn’t show up over your investing horizon. But keep in mind any period that ends with a decade where SV underperforms is going to look bad. If you ended your period in 2007, you would come to a very different conclusion about a 25 year time period.
I don’t think the end decade matters any more than any other decade in the time period.
You write:
“I mentioned above that performance data of this type is severely influenced by the returns at the end of the time period. Over the last 5-10 years, Growth Stocks and Large Stocks have outperformed the overall market, despite the fact that over the long run Value Stocks and Small Stocks have outperformed the market. So it should be no surprise to see that most of these 26 winners were composed of Large Growth stocks. ”
Isn’t this a fallacy?
If Large cap were to outperform equivalently in the beginning years of the time period (rather than the end of the time period) then the returns would be exactly the same. For two identical sets of returns it doesn’t matter what order they occur in. As a mathematical example:
1.1*1.2*1.2*0.98*1.01*0.97 = 0.97*1.01*0.98*1.2*1.2*1.1 = 1.52
Obviously large cap outperformance during the time period has an effect, but it shouldn’t matter at all if the outperformance occurs at the beginning, middle, or end of the time period.
It’s amazing that posts like this still need to be written. I’ve been investing for a minuscule fraction compared to you but find this conclusion inevitable. The mindset of those determined to rationalize active investing is like my friend arguing that they have the perfect formula to pick the best fantasy football team. They’re usually at the bottom of the league.
In all seriousness, while we can’t say anything is impossible, the probability of beating the market with stocks is so much lower and requires so much more of our valuable time compared to real estate per se. Yet people get more scared over the leaky toilet call that never comes compared to the fees that will add up to millions that they are paying to actively manage their stock portfolio.
The Prudent Plastic Surgeon
dude, brilliant!!! never thought to compare fantasy football to active investing!!
I suck at fantasy football . . .
Interesting. I actually own 2 of the funds that listed for their outperformance since 1982. One of them I started DCA into them in 1989. I have such a large capital gain that I have them for life. I turned off the reinvestment years ago. Now in retirement the gains that these funds throw off more than meets my spending needs without me selling anything. Would I invest in these now….No. I think I made some lemonade however.
Nice!
Not sure how Vanguard ETF BGT didn’t make the list as outperforming their Index 500 fund over 10 years.
Meant VGT
Probably only looked at traditional mutual funds. But there is a comparable traditional fund share class, VITAX.
Looks really good as of today, 20%+ returns over the last 10 years.
But it is NOT a large blend or a large growth fund. It is a tech fund, a relatively narrow sector that has had exceptional recent performance. That’s why it isn’t in the list.
I think it was looking at stock funds. BGT doesn’t invest in stocks (nor is it a Vanguard ETF, it is by Blackrock).
BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust’s (BGT) (the ‘Trust’) primary investment objective is to provide a high level of current income. The Trust’s secondary investment objective is to seek the preservation of capital. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objectives by investing primarily, under normal conditions, at least 80% of its assets in floating and variable rate instruments of US and non-US issuers, including a substantial portion of its assets in global floating and variable rate securities including senior secured floating rate loans made to corporate and other business entities. Under normal market conditions, the Trust expects that the average effective duration of its portfolio will be no more than 1.5 years. The Trust may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.
Whar are everyone’s current asset allocations and which index funds are you using?
VTSAX 70% | VTIAX 15% | VBTLX 15% (Sorry it’s so overly complicated, hopefully it makes sense) 🙂
Cool thanks!
Is it ok to put these in a taxable account?
That is, are they tax efficient?
Thanks
The first two (Total Stock Market and Total International Stock Market) are. Total Bond Market generally isn’t. Most high income earners with bonds in a taxable account will use a tax exempt bond fund.
I might get killed on here, but I really like PSLDX (Pimco StocksPlus Long duration), it has returned 549.45% in the last 10 years verus 247.72% for VTSAX. It has exposure to 100% sp500 index which is inactive as well as 140% exposure to longterm bonds. It does have active management on the bond side which supposedly works better than on the equity side. I’ve decided I would rather hold this fund than tilt towards factors.
Another etf to look at is NTSX
Not surprised it has done so well recently leveraging up long term bonds. Obviously, that could have worked out differently if rates had gone up. There is little evidence that active management works any better on the bond side than the equity side. For example, over the last 5 years the index outperformed 96% of long treasury active funds and 99% of long corporates. Only in one fixed income asset class did the active managers outperform (and barely) over the last 5 years and I doubt that would persist to 10 years.
https://www.spindices.com/spiva/#/reports
What about the stellar record of Vanguard Health Care Fund? 16.15% since 1984
Any better fund???
Certainly one of Vanguard’s great performers and I think it’s pretty highly regarded in its sector. I don’t really invest in sector funds. I suspect the only reason it wasn’t included in the first list in this post is it wasn’t around in 1982. It wasn’t in the other lists because it is a sector fund, like the IT fund mentioned above.
Very interesting – thanks for putting all this together. What I would really love to see is a comparison of consecutive periods.
Put another way, if I wanted to use actively managed funds today, I would go look at the ones that had done the best over the last 10/15/20 years and buy those ones today, hoping they would continue to outperform in the future. To see how (in)effective that strategy really is, it would be interesting to look at the top 3-5 funds that had performed the best over the last 10/15/20 years as of 2000, 2005, 2010, or 2015, and then see how those performed since that time.
It’s one thing for a fund to outperform an index over 20 or 30 years. It’s another thing for it to outperform the first half of that period, so you know to then go buy it, and then for it to continue outperforming over the second half of that period. I’ve never seen an analysis showing that type of data.
That’s been done. The results are, unsurprisingly, disappointing, at least in the long run.
https://www.fwp.partners/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Performance-Persistence-Morningstar-2016.pdf
Another reason for sticking to boring broadly diversified low cost index funds? They promote good investor behavior. You don’t have to worry about how much better or worse your funds are doing compared to the market. You only have to worry that they are tracking the index reasonably well and are growing at a pace that will meet your long term goals.
This is a post most newbies need to read. There are still too many out there that think they can hitch their goals solely on past performance!
I agree. It is wonderful to completely eliminate manager risk from your portfolio. A Bogle book might not make for super stimulating reading, but its lessons should be absorbed by every serious investor. This is one of them.
there are too many highly educated(like the Ivies endowment funds) that think they are smarter than the markets
They gotta study a bit more
The Vanguard S&P 500 fund was not very cheap (in terms of expense ratio) at its launch in 1976 and had probably not achieved much economy of scale even by 1982 as it was slow to catch on with investors. The admiral class index fund or ETF with its current expense ratio would have had a better showing against the active funds in the 38 year ranking. Or better stated since our real concern is future performance, the index cost advantage is now an even taller hurdle for active management to beat.
Thank you for this post. What are your thoughts on targeted retirement funds which are designed to be more aggressive early on and more conservative later on? I think there is less long term data on these. I’m not positive but I assume there is sizeable turnover and larger fees than index funds.
The good ones are composed of index funds and the cost is barely higher than building it yourself. I think they’re great if your entire portfolio is in an account(s) where the fund is available.
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/7-reasons-i-dont-use-target-retirement-funds/
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/not-all-target-retirement-plans-are-created-equal/
Thank you for this post. What are your thoughts on targeted retirement funds which are designed to be more aggressive early on and more conservative later on? I think there is less long term data on these. I’m not positive but I assume there is sizeable turnover and larger fees than index funds.
One small typo confused me for a while.
“The best one from 1982 to 2002”
I couldn’t figure out why we cared what happened in 2002 or how that was 38 years. I’m probably the only one not smart enough to know instantly that was supposed to be 2020.
Thanks for the correction. Fixed.
I’m a newcomer to your most interesting and informative blog, although I’ve been an investor for about 10 years, a Mustachian for 5 years, and a Boglehead for 2. When I transitioned from stock picking to mutual funds (ETFs, actually), I followed Dave Ramsey’s advice and tried to identify the stocks that have a very long history of exceptional returns. I picked exactly 3 funds: FSPTX, PRGFX, and TRCBX. Later I got into Vanguard’s offerings and the majority of my holdings are now in VTI, VOO, and, to a lesser extent, VGT.
After reading this blog, I needed to see how my actively managed funds did, compared to the Vanguard index funds. I chose ETrade’s comparison tool, which allows comparison of 1, 3, 5, and 10 year periods. Turns out that all of my actively managed funds by far outperformed VTI and VOO, in every single time frame mentioned.
Maybe I just got lucky?
The interesting thing about all this is you thought you were diversified with three funds, but in reality, those three funds had a ton of overlap between them. It was really pseudodiversification.
Maybe. But your three selected funds are all tech/large growth funds, a sector/investing style which has outperformed the market the last few years. A better comparison would be to a tech index for FSPTX and to large growth index for the other two, rather than a broad market fund. For example, the Vanguard Growth Index Fund has 1 year returns of 40.2%, 5 years returns of 20.32% and 10 year returns of 16.67%. PRGFX has 1 year returns of 35.09%, 5 year returns of 22.83%, and 10 year returns of 17.20%. Still a great pick, but not nearly as impressive as when you compared it against the overall market. TRBCX (which I assume you meant) is 31, 23, 18. Another good pick. FSPTX beat the Vanguard tech ETF (VGT) over the last year, but it’s 5 and 10 year returns are much lower. So that one actually was a bad pick. 2 out of 3 isn’t bad. Luck or skill? Impossible to say, but given that you didn’t know you should be comparing it to a more comparable index, I’m leaning toward the luck side.
I am the individual who researched the mutual fund performance data that you refer to in this post. I referred back to our original conversation from May 1, 2020 on page 7 of the 150 Portfolios Better Than Yours. This is what I said back then:
Mome | May 1, 2020 at 6:40 am MST
After further research, I’ve discovered that the best portfolio you could have owned over the last 40 years is a Health Care fund. I’m not saying that will be best going forward…
So I never said you should invest in a Healthcare fund going forward. I was making the point that based on the time period used, one could make an argument for almost any sub asset class. Small Value is an example of time period bias. Why are investors so willing to accept that as gospel when it is also based on what worked best in the past? There were multiple small cap and value funds that grossly underperformed during the 38 year time frame that you did not mention since your list stopped at Vanguard 500 Index. 38 years of underperformance doesn’t convince anyone that maybe the small value affect needs to be revisited? DFA started the Microcap fund due to the Fama & French research and it has underperformed. SO has the Vanguard Small Cap INdex fund over the past 38 years. Below is the complete list:
Fidelity Select Health Care FSPHX $2,672,426.37 Health
Alger Spectra ASPZX $1,581,975.21 Large Growth
Fidelity Contrafund FCNTX $1,337,307.46 Large Growth
Fidelity Select Technology FSPTX $1,183,396.93 Technology
Columbia Acorn LACAX $1,058,146.20 Mid-Cap Growth
Mairs & Power Growth MPGFX $1,044,664.42 Large Blend
American Century Ultra TWUIX $949,697.85 Large Growth
American Funds Growth Fund of America AGTHX $911,224.84 Large Growth
Dodge & Cox Stock DODGX $882,607.15 Large Value
Davis New York Venture DNVYX $880,236.99 Large Blend
Sequoia SEQUX $878,547.29 Large Growth
MainStay MAP Equity MUBFX $860,784.06 Large Blend
American Funds Fundamental Investors ANCFX $852,664.06 Large Blend
Congress Large Cap Growth CMLIX $843,696.15 Large Growth
Fidelity Magellan FMAGX $842,506.17 Large Growth
AllianzGI Mid-Cap DRMCX $835,241.29 Mid-Cap Growth
PGIM Jennison Utility PRUZX $798,656.03 Utilities
Wells Fargo Omega Growth EOMYX $765,571.10 Large Growth
American Funds New Perspective ANWPX $760,959.32 World Large Stock
Franklin DynaTech FKDNX $725,992.94 Large Growth
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock PRGFX $720,070.32 Large Growth
American Funds Washington Mutual AWSHX $702,253.93 Large Blend
Invesco Oppenheimer Global OPPAX $675,280.25 World Large Stock
Royce Pennsylvania PENNX $653,236.37 Small Blend
American Funds AMCAP AMCPX $653,207.62 Large Growth
American Funds Investment Company of America AIVSX $651,530.65 Large Blend
Vanguard 500 Index VFIAX $644,001.56 Large Blend
Putnam Global Health Care PHSTX $643,135.49 Health
Voya Corporate Leaders LEXCX $636,816.74 Large Value
American Century Growth TWGIX $627,892.09 Large Growth
Franklin Growth FKGRX $627,601.83 Large Growth
Selected American Shares SLASX $613,433.95 Large Blend
Touchstone Large Cap Focused SICWX $610,546.79 Large Blend
DWS Science and Technology KTCIX $608,598.99 Technology
Fidelity FFIDX $598,692.53 Large Growth
ClearBridge Appreciation SAPYX $597,949.96 Large Blend
Neuberger Berman Mid Cap Growth NBMLX $588,938.21 Mid-Cap Growth
Nicholas NICSX $587,849.26 Large Growth
MFS Massachusetts Investors Growth MIGFX $586,297.95 Large Growth
AB Sustainable Global Thematic ALTFX $571,854.01 World Large Stock
Ivy Accumulative IATAX $569,978.66 Large Growth
ClearBridge Value LMNVX $569,241.14 Large Blend
American Century Select TWSIX $548,038.61 Large Growth
Fidelity Trend FTRNX $546,301.53 Large Growth
Neuberger Berman Guardian NGDLX $538,439.51 Large Growth
Vanguard Windsor VWNDX $535,368.10 Large Value
Victory RS Large Cap Alpha RCEYX $533,983.60 Large Blend
Virtus KAR Mid-Cap Growth PICMX $532,586.79 Mid-Cap Growth
American Funds American Mutual AMRMX $528,074.53 Large Value
Eaton Vance Dividend Builder EVTMX $526,297.02 Large Blend
FMI Common Stock FMIUX $524,142.62 Mid-Cap Blend
DFA US Micro Cap DFSCX $517,750.86 Small Blend
MFS Research MFRFX $511,946.64 Large Blend
MFS Massachusetts Investors MITTX $509,904.99 Large Blend
William Blair Growth WBGSX $508,597.16 Large Growth
Federated MDT Large Cap Value FMSTX $507,116.29 Large Value
Pioneer PYODX $506,159.89 Large Blend
AB Small Cap Growth QUASX $502,086.46 Small Growth
ClearBridge Large Cap Value SAIFX $488,015.12 Large Value
Invesco Oppenheimer Rising Dividends OARDX $486,636.05 Large Blend
BlackRock Basic Value MABAX $483,591.32 Large Value
Invesco Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation OPTFX $480,061.14 Large Growth
Vanguard International Growth VWIGX $475,995.66 Foreign Large Growth
Fidelity Select Utilities FSUTX $474,848.16 Utilities
AB Relative Value CABDX $474,619.90 Large Value
AB Discovery Growth CHCLX $471,535.92 Mid-Cap Growth
Franklin Mutual Beacon FMBRX $471,403.54 World Large Stock
Fidelity Value FDVLX $469,994.36 Mid-Cap Value
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value EILVX $467,713.71 Large Value
Fidelity Select Financial Services FIDSX $449,849.90 Financial
Invesco Comstock ACSTX $446,117.39 Large Value
Lord Abbett Developing Growth LAGWX $444,725.02 Small Growth
Invesco Growth and Income ACGIX $443,193.22 Large Value
Value Line Larger Companies Focused VLLIX $441,256.76 Large Growth
Neuberger Berman Large Cap Value NBPIX $435,452.23 Large Value
Nationwide NWFAX $428,485.00 Large Blend
Fidelity Equity-Income FEQIX $425,921.97 Large Value
PGIM Jennison Blend PEQZX $419,000.72 Large Growth
Vanguard U.S. Growth VWUSX $418,844.04 Large Growth
Neuberger Berman Focus NFALX $415,986.28 Large Blend
Franklin Utilities FKUQX $410,369.98 Utilities
Lord Abbett Affiliated LAFFX $409,190.56 Large Value
Principal Equity Income PEIIX $408,409.86 Large Value
BlackRock Asian Dragon MAPCX $400,131.90 Pacific/Asia ex-Japan Stock
PGIM Jennison Small Company PSCZX $394,160.03 Small Growth
Sterling Capital Stratton Mid Cap STRGX $392,332.71 Mid-Cap Blend
Madison Investors MINVX $390,366.59 Large Blend
Vanguard Explorer VEXPX $388,964.31 Small Growth
Value Line Premier Growth VALSX $386,780.02 Mid-Cap Growth
RMB Fund RMBGX $381,118.79 Large Growth
Evercore Equity EWMCX $367,064.60 Large Growth
Putnam Equity Income PEYAX $364,595.35 Large Value
BlackRock Advantage U.S. Total Market MASPX $364,112.30 Large Blend
Guggenheim StylePlus Large Core GILIX $364,105.00 Large Blend
FPA Paramount FPRAX $363,564.08 World Large Stock
Asset Management Large Cap IICAX $358,298.89 Large Blend
Sterling Capital Stratton Real Estate STMDX $355,645.37 Real Estate
Templeton World TEMWX $354,816.44 World Large Stock
Vanguard Small-Cap Index VSMAX $335,675.84 Small Blend
Templeton Growth TEPLX $335,230.11 World Large Stock
ClearBridge All Cap Value SFVYX $330,999.16 Large Value
Invesco Charter CHTRX $323,576.12 Large Blend
Nationwide Mellon Dynamic U.S. Core NMFAX $317,936.95 Large Blend
BNY Mellon Research Growth DWOAX $313,163.78 Large Growth
Natixis Oakmark NEOYX $295,127.06 Large Blend
BNY Mellon Sustainable U.S. DTCAX $289,371.12 Large Blend
USAA Aggressive Growth USAUX $287,951.97 Large Growth
DWS Core Equity SUWIX $279,906.09 Large Blend
Guggenheim StylePlus Mid GIUIX $273,043.96 Mid-Cap Growth
Templeton Global Smaller Companies TEMGX $271,265.79 World Small/Mid Stock
T. Rowe Price International Stock PRITX $255,557.86 Foreign Large Growth
Value Line Mid Cap Focused VLMIX $252,791.40 Mid-Cap Growth
BNY Mellon Large Cap Securities DREVX $250,571.86 Large Growth
Crossmark Steward Small-Mid Cap SCECX $249,775.87 Small Blend
T. Rowe Price New Era PRNEX $241,953.11 Natural Resources
USAA Growth USAAX $219,379.88 Large Growth
Selected International SLSSX $214,346.34 Foreign Large Blend
Virtus Vontobel Global Opportunities WWOIX $199,304.09 World Large Stock
DWS CROCI International SUIIX $191,527.97 Foreign Large Blend
Delaware Global Equity FIITX $189,838.84 World Large Stock
WPG Partners Small/Micro Cap Value WPGTX $189,497.88 Small Value
Eaton Vance Special Equities EISEX $186,974.12 Mid-Cap Growth
Nationwide Bailard International Equities NWHJX $158,868.53 Foreign Large Blend
Guggenheim Large Cap Value GILCX $131,593.28 Large Value
Fidelity Select Energy FSENX $114,436.54 Equity Energy
Franklin Gold and Precious Metals FKRCX $112,481.20 Equity Precious Metals
U.S. Global Investors All American Equity GBTFX $100,188.81 Large Blend
VanEck International Investors Gold INIYX $99,013.49 Equity Precious Metals
U.S. Global Investors Gold and Precious Metals USERX $10,012.92 Equity Precious Metals
So what does the track record look like since your post? That’s most interesting, no?