10 Great Mutual Funds You've Never Heard of

Reader Comments
Back to article

After several hard and expensive lessons I manage our families investments including self directed IRA's. I enjoy the research and while have my share of blunders I have been attaing and maintaining reasonable returns - around 10% overall. I invest in mostly stocks directly watching debt, rate of return, increasing mkt share, dividend payout and ratio, ROA, ROI. I read nearly daily and do look at the holdings of MF's mentioned in articles like this -- even a 1% annual fee is cash out of MY pocket. However, for area's I don't feel I can handle I will use an ETF for certain industries or geographic area's and index funds for small/mid-cap stocks. I don't sell frequently and use a low cost online broker. Tongue in cheek: I may not be that smart and I am to dumb to quit.

Andy of WI 11:26AM October 02, 2010

Are there any funds that consistently pay out 10%?
I have 600,000 and don't like the idea of annuities.

Vegas Vic of NV 11:42AM September 03, 2010

I found the selection "Great Mutual Funds..." to be rather lacking in the long term. Only one or two had came close to currently doubling their hypothetical $10,000 over the last 10 years and at least one was roughly even (and I'm assuming those returns included reinvestment of dividends, if any).
I believe there is merit to looking at past performance, especially considering the 10 year/life of fund numbers that span two bear markets. I check the 2 or 3 year performance to see how hard the fund was hit in the last downturn.
To Jenny. Believe me, if a fund of any size is really performing, word will get out regardless of "marketing resources". There are very few real secrets (if any) in the investment world. I do fund evaluations and I don't really care which family of funds shows up as the top returning fun for the past 10 years, I buy the results, not the name. Big doesn't mean bad.

pound puppy of IA 4:19PM July 07, 2010

It is easy to pick "great funds" based on last year's performance. However, people tend to forget what the SEC requires mutual fund companies to say in every communication with the public: "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns".
Here's my translation to some of the funds descriptions:
-"To neutralize sector dynamics, the fund keeps its sector weightings almost identical to the S&P 500's" --> The fund is a closet index fund with less holdings and thus more risk than a plain vanilla S&P 500 index fund. Plus, you'll pay 5 times more in fees by owning this fund over the Vanguard S&P 500; it is possible that the manager will "outperform", but it is more likely that he will not.
-The fund's turnover ratio, for example, is 259 percent...Rao seeks out companies with long-term advantages..."What we look for are what we would define as very high-quality companies that have long-term, sustainable moats around their businesses," he says. --> This fund focuses on quality companies that have long-term potential; however, that potential is irrelevant to the manager because he will sell all the stocks in the fund every 4 months.
I find worrisome inaccuracies in the "hypothetical growth of $10,000" chart. How can you compare a small cap or a "smid-cap" fund with the performance of the S&P 500? It is like comparing watermelons with chickens and saying that they're comparable because both can be eaten.

Mike G of TX 12:06PM May 29, 2010

I've been going over several big name funds that I have, I found that their 10 year returns were a measly 2.5 % (approximately). Now, that's nothing to be proud of. In addition, I pay about 1.5% each year for them to MANAGE the funds. Again, this fee is much too much for the performance I get. To add insult to injury, after the last market downturn, they re-designated the funds so that it makes if more difficult for someone to track the funds long-term performance--it seems an attempt to deceive the unwary. Consequently, to say that I am unhappy is a gross understatement. I'm thoroughly disgusted with many big name funds and their so-called fund managers...so I will take the money out of these funds and search for companies that are much more transparent, honest, and work harder for the investor.

S W Barbour of NC 9:39AM May 16, 2010

I love articles like this. I'm sick and tired of the big fund families monopolizing the fund industry because they have more marketing resources.

Jenny Carl of WI 4:31PM March 26, 2010

I always see articles like this, asking "who beat the market last year?" or explaining that so-and-so manager beat the market by 5 points. The problem is that, statistically, the funds that do best for a few years tend to underperform the market later. After all, their portfolios are full of stocks that have already gone up. A fund manager needs 10+ years to prove that their strategy is truly superior, and few ever last that long.
http://frostfinance.blogspot.com/

E Frost 3:18AM March 26, 2010