I don't tend to post much with respect to our actual investment funds, because of the perception at MFO that American Funds is a almost a pariah because of their front loads. We may be somewhat of an exception on that, as we haven't been subject to those "A" share loads for almost forty years now.
The ER at American is among the lowest, and the management style, with no emphasis on so-called "stars", suits us just fine. As the chart shows, American is just below Vanguard with respect to ER. If your investment at American is long-term, that ongoing low ER will eventually offset the load if you do have to pay it.
We keep about half of our investments at American, about one quarter at American Century, and the other quarter mostly at Schwab, where we take positions mostly based on information gleaned here at MFO. That Schwab bunch is certainly the most interesting to deal with, if not always fun to watch.

That's a pretty cool chart! I sometimes worry because TRP (where I invest) seems to be perpetually cranking out new funds - some very similar in nature. But looking at these "balloons" I think I understand why. They're struggling to stay large (and competitive) among some real giants.
Maybe I missed something. But to state "The best firms ... are American and Dodge and Cox" strikes me as somewhat presumptuous. For sure, D&C (where I have a little) has a lot to recommend it. They have some of the lowest ERs among the active managers. They're a privately held held firm. And have a great long-term record.
The one thing I'd caution against is that tit-for-tat I think you'll find their equity and balanced funds are a bit more volatile than those of many peers. Don't know if this is (1) just part of their investment culture or (2) whether perhaps the mamouth size of their funds necessitates they stay pretty much fully invested in larger cap stocks and assume a longer-term time horizon. Probably both.
@bee - If you missed it, there's some discussion of DODGX in @Ted's: "M*: 10 Funds That Beat the Market Over 15 Years" thread.
Regards

Hi Bee, I thought Yahoo has a separate link that plots the "D" you mentioned. At least several years back they did. You may also want to try Google Finance.
Finally, I think M* alert subscriptions will alert you when distributions are made (not sure if they alert you BEFORE they are made). May not be what you want, but it's something.
Finally, not sure exactly as to what you are trying to find/analyse, but Yahoo also has dividend adjusted NAV numbers (again, at least they used to).

@VF:
DODGX - Value of $100 on January 1, 2008
December 31, 2008 - $56.69 (loss of 43.31%)
December 31, 2009 - $74.41 (gain of 31.27%)
December 31, 2010 - $84.44 (gain of 13.48%)
December 31, 2011 - $81.00 (loss of 4.08%)
December 31, 2012 - $98.83 (gain of 22.01%)
December 31, 2013 - $138.34 (gain of 40.55%)
You'd still be slightly behind 5 years after investing the initial amount. This assumes no custodial fees were paid from your invested amount over those years. Had you paid such fees out of invested money, you'd be further behind. Waiting one additional year would have paid-off. The fund jumped 40.55% in 2013.

I have been invested for some years in DODIX. Recently I bought shares in DODLX. So far, so good.

Morningstar introduced medal (and neutral and negative) ratings in 2011. So asking what medal, if any, a fund had 15 years ago is meaningless. The predecessor to medals was analyst pick or pan.
I haven't found an analyst pick list going back quite that far, but here's one from a decade ago (2007). The site appears to have more recent ones as well.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/morningstar/advisor_2007fall/index.php?startid=82
Here's the search that will get you these books. Just change the year (2007) in the URL to the year (between 2007 and 2012) that you're interested in. Then look at the contents of the "book" for Mutual Fund Analyst Picks to get you to the right page.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Morningstar+analyst+picks+2007+site:nxtbook.com

Lewis- With respect to your observations, that's pretty much why we've stayed with American Funds (for a major part of our fund exposure) for the best part of forty years now. Their funds are managed by committee, which tends to have an averaging effect, and allows for introduction of new viewpoints as the world churns. Usually no significant outperformance, but the slow and steady turtle works well too. (We haven't paid loads for "A" shares for almost 40 years.)

Bloomberg story on McKinsey study ("Diminishing Returns: Why Investors May Need to Lower Their Expectations") that looks even longer term - 20 years, comparing it with the past 30. Bottom line - expect 1.5% to 4% lower returns in US/Western Europe stocks and 3% to 5% lower returns in bonds going forward than in the past 30, depending on whether we have slow growth or return to 2.9% growth.
Bloomberg story: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/be-afraid-be-very-afraid-if-you-re-investing-for-the-long-run
McKinsey summary (containing link to full report pdf):
http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/private-equity-and-principal-investors/our-insights/why-investors-may-need-to-lower-their-sights
The study is about 40 pages, excluding intro and technical appendices. Haven't read yet, but looks interesting and informative.
Bloomberg video (2 min) summarizing study and presenting investment alternative (go global, esp. EM):

The only question that matters is will they beat the market over the next 15? How do you answer that? You have to ask are the conditions the same or at least similar to the ones that allowed the funds to beat the market the first time? Some of those condition questions can be answered and some can't. For instance, is the manager the same and is that manager as able bodied as he/she once was or has time dulled their edge somehow? Does the fund still invest in the same kinds of stocks as it once did or has asset boat caused style drift? Was it a certain style or strategy that was once in favor when this manager outperformed that is out of favor now and may never be in favor again? Was the outperformance just due to a few years of strong performance or to a consistent edge because if it was just a handful of banner years, that ourperformance may not come again? Is there a suitable succession plan in place for when this manager retires?
Those are the sorts of questions one must ask before choosing such a fund instead of an index fund.

Is there a way to find out when M* made these funds "medalists"? I thought in their fund table they would have said how long the funds have been medalists.
Asking because I can look at the top funds for last 15 years year after year, make them ANALists, and then say I won!
Also, who will remember to wait 15 more years to see how these funds fared? No one. Unless of course they fare well, in which case M* surely will. But, wait. In another 15 years there would be more medalists. Nice gig, eh?

I'm still concerned about market valuations here, and May is around the corner. Examples of high current price to historical TTM free cash flow ratios (data from Morningstar): MCD 28.7; AMZN 45.2; CSX 52.3; FB 36.9. I'm whittling away at my equity allocation, being up to about 66% bonds/cash now. Although I'm 64, I'll weight back into equites when valuations are more reasonable. I've been on this train ride before when derailments can happen quickly. And so it goes...

Market Valuations were higher 1 month back. They may be higher 1 month in future.
Every prediction is based on hindsight. Based on what happened in the past. I'm the last one to ask anyone to ignore history. They do so at their own peril. However it is not about identifying market tops or market bottoms. It is about gradually buying in and gradually fading out. There was a time when you could just plonk money into balanced fund. Not sure that will work any more, and *this* is not about past history, but about future. Past history says invest in balanced funds if you are wimp because it was predicated on interest rates going lower and lower. So it is important for one to be able to manage his/her cash position.
I'm not 25 years old. I can't keep DCAing into VFINX. Between 2000 and 2013 index went nowhere. I'm not going to waste my time figuring out how DCA worked because each situation is different. Maybe someone can calculate $100 invested each month in that interval and find out how much money they had in 2013, then we can discuss. In 13 years I might be dead, so I will not bother making that calculation.

Hi @BobC,
My bonds have about 3.5 years of effective duration and my cash is in U.S. Government MMFs for now. I'm up to 74% bonds/cash now after a little trading today (incuding a little tax loss harvesting to offset some LT capital gains I took back in February). Thanks for your input, and I agree on avoiding long-term bonds or even intermediate-term bonds that are on the long-term end of the scale.

FYI: After 10 years, my $60,000 investment in a private gin company finally paid dividends. Initially, given the company was sold for about $49M after expenses and I had invested in the company at a $10M post money valuation, I was thinking I had made a ~3X return ($180,000). Since over time shareholders get diluted with subsequent funding rounds, I thought that was a reasonable assumption. -
Regards,
Ted
http://www.financialsamurai.com/just-say-no-to-angel-investing/

FYI: (Attention John Bogle, here are 10 needles in your haystack !)
While it's true that most funds won't beat market indexes over long stretches after accounting for fees, here's a closer look at a handful of Morningstar Medalists that did.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=804177

The amount of dollars you should have in cash/CDs/short-term bonds depends on what you need to withdraw from your portfolio. We advocate 4-6 years, some folks use longer time frames. Let's assume a person needs $1,250 per month from their investments. That would mean $15,000 per year multiplied by five for five years of protected income stream. This does not account for any taxes that might need to be withheld. You would gross up the monthly amount to accommodate that.
On a $300,000 portfolio, that would require $75,000 be in cash/CDs/short-term bonds. Have at least 6-12 months of this in cash or CDs maturing in the near term. The remaining portfolio can be invested as aggressively as your risk profile and time horizon allow. In years when the stock markets are good, you would capture gains from your equity investments to replenish the $75,000. In lean years, you use dollars from your set-aside stash. The last two market crashes have meant recovery of values in about 5 years or less for our clients. The stash means you won't have to sell devalued assets in a down market.
Does this work? Yes. We have used this strategy with many clients for 30 years. The variables are the dollars needed, the number of years selected for protection, whether to withhold taxes from distributions in retirement accounts. Many clients reduce spending in years when returns are not good or negative. Some do not have that option. The key is to establish a very conservative total return projection for your retirement, and be able to adjust your cash flow need. If you base your lifetime income projection (to age 100) on a 7% annual return, you may be asking for a rude awakening.

FYI: Portfolio returns in the early years of retirement could have a large bearing on the success or failure of a retirement income strategy; a few years of early market appreciation means a high likelihood for a healthy retirement, while a flat or declining market in the early years could throw a wrench into the calculation.
It is called sequence-of-return risk, and it poses a serious conundrum for advisers putting together a retirement-income plan for client
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20170425/FREE/170429938?template=printart

Hi @VintageFreak,
I'm pretty much with you on the subject ... as I average in (or down) when making changes within my portfolio; and, I also keep some powder dry (cash) for the unexpected pullbacks that most did not see coming in the markets. When stocks are selling towards their lows I hold more and when they are pricey I hold less. Currently, based upon the TTM P/E Ratio of 24.4 (April 21st) for the S&P 500 Index they are pricey in my book. And, if you buy on the come line of forward estimates ... you are buying just that estimates. Most times these forward looking estimates get revised downward and although you may win some come line investments often times you'll lose by buying when they were very richley priced.
Before, someone calls me out on the TTM P/E Ratio for the S&P 500 Index I'm linking my reference source(s).
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3021-peyield.html?mod=wsj_mdc_additional_ustocks
and, here ...
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/04/04/is-the-stock-market-cheap
Yep, I'm thinking stock prices are extended and they usually by history go soft during the summer months and rally during the winter months. Still with my plan to reduce my equity allocation towards its low range during the summer. Come late summer or early fall I'll let my market barometer and equity weighting matrix be my guide as to when to start to average back upward. And, I also know that some say that this strategy (Sell in May) does not work in modern day investing. The below link will provide an article that explains the Sell in May strategy in some detail.
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/should-you-sell-may-go-away?nopaging=1
Perhaps, this is Old_School investment mythology ... but, for me, it has worked more times than not. With this, I plan to "keep on keepin' on."
Old_Skeet
Trailing Note: Since, comments were made below about bond duration and maturity I thought I post mine. My portfolio as a whole bubbles, according to Morningstar Portfolio Manager, with a bond duration of 3.4 years and an average maturity of 5.9 years while my fixed income sleeve bubbles with a duration of 2.71 years and an average maturity of 4.91 years. So my hybrid funds seem to be carrying longer durations and maturities and run the overall numbers upward for the portfolio as a whole.

"Live in the present" might work better as a matter of tactical allocation (stocks or bonds this year? here or there? defensive or aggressive?) but the strategic question (how much do I need to squirrel away over each of the next 35 years to have a reasonable chance of meeting my goals) has to include a "likely market return" variable.
David

I just know I suffered 50% losses in the first correction and 20% in the second correction. That's what I meant by invest in the present. Sometimes it is best to leave the battlefield and live to fight another day. Now if you are wrong and the party you left ended up winning the battle, then you don't partake on the spoils. However, what I've learnt is you get over missed opportunities in 1 week, while you never get over ...death.
I think that works for me.

I can remember Mr. Know-All Gross and a lot of other self-appointed poobahs predicting low, single-digit returns for the last decade (2000-2010), then just about every year thereafter. Mr. Gloom, Jeremy Grantham has certainly been forecasting similar numbers for some time. Gosh, if you listen to him, the only place to make real money is investing in timber. The "baby-boomer" concept has also been floating around for some time. I can't speak for all the other baby boomers, but I don't intent to pull money from my retirement accounts until the RMD rule forces me, and then only the minimum amount. At least that is the plan. As for inflation, most folks have been terribly wrong about that since the 2007-08 economic meltdown.
All the predictions for low returns are based on interpretations of current valuations, economic growth, and other guesses. And keep in mind that the prediction in question is for the S&P 500. What about other U.S. markets, developed international, and emerging markets, not to mention non-traditional investments? It seems to me that there is no way to predict this with any accuracy - heck, the weather people can't even get it right for the next 24 hours, and they have all sorts of ways to monitor things. The best thing is to assume your portfolio will achieve a very conservative return during your retirement years, and then run some scenarios to see if your dollars will outlast you. I would urge a similar strategy for the accumulation phase up to retirement. If the numbers turn out to be better, wonderful. You will have saved "too much".

@davidrmoran
Agree. I have always pushed those I've know over the years to invest early (compounding) and continuous, and let the distributions be reinvested.