FYI: A mutual fund exists for virtually any and all your investment needs in your retirement or other accounts. The challenge is in choosing the right one for your portfolio from the more than 8,000 mutual funds available.
The second annual IBD Best Mutual Fund Awards makes the task a lot easier. Every one of them has beaten its benchmark for the past one, three, five and 10 years — a feat that fewer than 4% of U.S. diversified stock and U.S. bond funds can claim.
Look at the list and see if you already own any of these top performers. If you don't, compare them to the ones you do own and see if they might make a better fit in your portfolio. If you're looking for a fund to start or add to your portfolio, this best-of-the best list is a great place to start.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/best-mutual-fund-awards/ibd-best-mutual-fund-awards-growth-value-large-cap-small-cap-muni-bond/

Old_Joe: Nice to see an article written by Kathleen Pender, an excellent financial writer, who's articles I have linked for many years both here at MFO and FundAlarm.
Regards,
Ted

First things first ...
@JoJo26,
Yes indeed I find a good number of spelling errors in my writting this is due in part to, at times, a sticking key board and coming form the deep south plus a little European background. Perhaps, I'll upgrade my tablet and get one with spellcheck. But, spelling has not kept me of actively engaging the markets and trolling good money from them through the years. I think I'll take the money over good spelling in my casual writting. Seems, also, my brain moves faster than my fingers.
@bee,
I don't own SFAAX but due to my study of interesting mutual funds it is one that I have kept on my list along with a sister fund EKSAX which is another five star asset allocation fund that uses some interesting an adaptive allocation strategies to position. I found the SFAAX fund for my engineer budy to compare and measure his success to that of this "professional money" fund as a benchmark.
For CTFAX (COTZX), I own this fund in my income sleeve becuse as it is currently about 90% fixed and 10% equity. This fund throttles its allocation based upon the price movement of the S&P 500 Index. Last year it held a high of about 25% equity, or there abouts, to a low of 15% possibly 10%. A good fixed income fund from my thinking that can load equities during a stock market pullback. I'm thinking it should do well in a rising interest rate environment.
And, yes I can buy in some fund families at nav. However, know that I am not an investment advisor nor broker and what I write about is things I do within my own personal portfolio. And, all those sites you have linked above I have used, or currently use, in the discovery of what others are thinking towards positioning.
@BrianW,
When you get right down to it selling one security and buying another by some is market timing and also throttling one's asset alloction is market timing. To me, market timing is going completely all in and then back out of the markets. Adjusting one's alloction is a form of rebalancing from my perspective but to some others being active is market timing.
@MJG,
No doubt MJG has his perspectives and sides more towards being a passive investor much like my high school budy who by profession is also an engineer like MJG. Because, my budy, "thought" he could enage the markets with some short term packaged timing strategies (day trade) he lost a bundle. With this he went to two funds a stock index fund and a bond index fund and throttles the asset allocation between 40% to 60% equity based upon some technicals of the 500 Index. I call this throttling, some call it rebalancing, some call it makret timing ... in the end he now earns good returns where before those that made the most money were the software and platform folks which he traded through. The two of us together had hands in the development of Old_Skeets market barometer and equity weighting matrix which we both use. I added a fundamental feed (earnings) while he moves from the other two feeds which are the technical strength feed and the breath feed. He uses only two while I use all three.
There you have it folks ... Market timing is most anything you want it to be because form time-to-time securities get added and/or removed even the indexes through repositioning; and, even doing this by some folks makes it an active fund perhaps streaches it on out to market timing by addition and deletion of securities.
Time to move on. I've got things to do ...
And ... @JoJo26, I sincerely wish you the very best with your investing endeavors as you progress and become a more seasoned investor.
Old_Skeet

Hi Guys,
The active vs. passive debate will never end. Mostly because a case for either side of that argument can be made depending on the timeframe being measured. As a generic rule I subscribe to the belief that active investing is indeed a Loser's game, but there are many exceptions.
Like in so many real world situations and various circumstances, the 80/20 distribution rule applies. In general, 20% of the input or people or effort generates 80% of the output. That observation seems to work most of the time.
In the investment universe, most active tactical asset allocation funds underperform simple buy-and-hold funds, yet they are specifically designed to do so. But some do although persistence is a standing issue. Most mutual funds underperform also but some manage their performance goal over long periods. Of course, the challenge is to choose wisely before the fact. That's not an easy job.
Personally, I own a mixed portfolio of both active and passive mutual funds. To cut costs, I have decided to move more heavily into passive components, but I plan to maintain some actively managed units. That's just me; you folks do whatever allows you to sleep comfortably.
Here is a Link that might contribute to you making a decision on this controversial subject:
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2016/08/09/how-tactical-allocation-mutual-funds-fared-over-the-last-five-years
The Vanguard balanced fund comes out looking pretty attractive in this comparison, but this is just one of hundreds of professional and academic papers and studies that explore this issue. Most of these studies demonstrate the futility of active investing, but it is never 100% conclusive. If it were so, the debate would end. And still the debate continues.
Best Wishes

Hi Ted,
Thanks very much for this excellent Vanguard study reference. It is a nice supplement to the Credit Suisse study that I referenced earlier. A diversity of perspective is always useful to provide a welcomed.balance.
The Vanguard work looks at a ton of what-if scenarios. Note its emphasis on portfolio volatility in terms of standard deviation. The study demonstrates the benefits of diversification, but also it shows relatively little sensitivity of those benefits as a function of the percent of foreign holdings. The parametric plots show rolling hills rather than cliffs. And the benefits seem to be decreasing in recent years. The world is becoming more tightly correlated with increasing trade and communication. Globalization is happening.
Thank you again for your find and Link. I,would expect nothing less from a Marine, and my expectations are never disappointed.
Best Wishes

@JoJO26,
Don't have to. Those that have followed my post on the board through the years know of my calls. What is at hand though is for you to now prove long term market timming strategies don't work. Are you up to it?
Years back when I started posting I made some statements and Derf is one that called me out. After I postured my position as I have asked you to do I earned the respect of others.
Going forward please don't make statements that you can't posture.
Old_Skeet +100

Thanks @Ted,
Mr. Rodgers didn't mention his companies own stock (TROW) which pays a 3.23% dividend and "over the long run" has done very well against the S&P 500, his own fund (PRFDX) as well as highly rated (PRWCX). Here's the performance chart over the last 30 years (his tenure). TROW in green, as in "money".

Thanks @Ted,
Compliment me if I'm right, but wouldn't LEXCX be a concentrated (21 holdings, ER = .52) way of investing in a well managed fund that holds a pretty good slug of the Dow?
LEXCX has been around for 76 years and here is it's chart (@rono would like):

Good idea to move the thread.
My only add about APPLX is that the asset class breakdown apparently hasn't changed much in the past few years at least, so I wouldn't think of it as a go-anywhere fund with much flexibility. I'd think of it more like the Pimco All Asset siblings (PASDX, PAUDX) which have a definite thesis that basically never changes and an asset allocation to match, a pretty bad record in recent years hanging onto a thesis that's not been working, and just about always qualifies for the ol' "stopped clock" saying.
Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who thought he'd found a keeper & was subsequently very much underwhelmed and disappointed in the management team's direction, beyond the results alone.
No opinions on the other funds - never had any experience with them.

FYI: The Dow Jones Industrial Average is one of the oldest and best-known indexes in the world. It has, by its nature as a benchmark for the largest stock market in the world, become an important barometer of global confidence over the years.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-dows-tumultuous-120-year-history-in-one-chart-2017-03-23/print

They have to be available NTF somewhere before I would consider. Launch timing might be perfect though, given so much news about people overweighting emerging markets. Ted's warning not withstanding, some funds have the luck of blasting right out of the gate. Nothing wrong in buying and selling in 3 years.

After a couple of years I finally gave up on WAFMX.

To explain, I owned APPLX for a year or two in its early days when it was mainly an all-cap U.S. value fund, liked it a lot, and thought it might be a keeper then (thus the "still" in the earlier post), but imho, it really fell apart when they added Au as a permanent fixture and went international, which looked to me at the time to be beyond their sphere of competence. Hadn't checked it for a while, but now I see it's returned less than 1% annual for 3y, and the port looks pretty similar to what it was when the performance tanked a few years ago, so looks to me they haven't done much right lately, either.
So, I'm just not seeing much there to bank on going forward, but wondered if you might have some insight that's different from the view from this house.

VF, I'm curious what you still see in APPLX.

Not sure I understand your question entirely - what do you still see...? My decisions to own funds are not always performance based. If so, I would have sold it. I'm curious why you asked me about APPLX and not (say) FAIRX or CGMFX. I am open to hearing your opinion on any of the funds I mentioned above as to why I should sell. Pretty much all of them have stunk from a relative performance perspective.
Getting back to APPLX gold bets have it underperforming till a couple of years back, but it seems to have come around. I can buy gold or I can buy funds who use gold as a hedge - HSTRX, FEVAX, APPLX.

1. Don't know if it's an SEC requirement, but Have yet to read a recent mutual fund prospectus that does't show returns year-by-year dating back a full decade. When considering a new fund, that's one of the first things I look at. The '07-'08 global market debacle did us one service. It painted vividly how funds than in existence held up during the downturn. As Lewis rightly explains, each bear market is different. We need to be careful in making projections based on past performance. But I ike to look at the '07-'09 history.
2. For a newer fund like DSENX that record doesn't exist. I'm not sure it could be "mirrored" by looking at various asset classes at the time, since its performance appears highly dependent on manager execution.
3. I have purchased new funds for which '07-09 records weren't in existence. IMHO this requires a higher degree of confidence in management (based on track record) and an even better understanding of the fund's investment approach than might otherwise be needed. One such fund is RPGAX which I've owned almost since inception in 2013.
On the other hand, concerned about equity valuations and a narrowing spread between high quality and junk bonds, I recently sold OPPEX (Oppenheimer Capital Income). This is a normally low volatility fund which attempts to hedge market risk (equity and bond) in various ways. It's provided a smooth ride over the year I've owned it. However, in looking back at '07-'08, this otherwise low volatility income fund managed to shed 40% over 2 years (nearly 38% in '08). I'd started with a small commitment to the fund. As the amount grew (and markets evolved) I decided that the risk-reward profile wasn't suitable for my needs.
FWIW

Hi Guys,
Perma-Bears and Perma-Bulls have always existed especially if minor exceptions are allowed in the definition of these groups.
Even historic Perma-Bears such as Joe Granville and Howard Ruff occasionally admitted a short positive market perspective. Today, Nourial Roubini, Doctor Doom, practices that discipline. Over any timeframe that extends beyond 10 years, their negative perspectives haven't survived the real world test. That's why we invest in the stock market.
VintageFreak asked if we could identify any Perma-Bulls. Again, using a loosened definition of Perma-Bulls that permits infrequent exceptions, I suggest the buy-and.-hold advocates might be included in that grouping. Guys like John Bogle would be good candidates for that sobriquet. The buy-and-hold it clan have a host of advocates in the academic community.
Paul Merriman summarizes much of their buy and forget it investment strategy. Here is a Link to one of his many papers that address this simple strategy:
http://paulmerriman.com/ultimate-buy-hold-strategy-2016/
Some very illuminating comments have been contributed to this topic. Thank you all.
Best Wishes

What's your advice when it comes to selecting mutual funds that are managed using sub-advisor?
A recent article from FA (Financial Advisor) mentions,

...many institutions and financial advisors favor sub-advised funds because they can hire the best managers and not rely on in-house staff. Currently 13% of mutual funds are managed by outside advisors. And assets in sub-advised funds have increase 25% to $755 billion since 2004. By contrast, assets of all mutual funds are up about 15%, or $453 billion, over the same period.
-(The) largest players in the sub-advisory marketplace include Wellington Asset Management, Alliance Bernstein, PIMCO and Prime Cap. But there are a number of smaller shops with strong track records.
-There often is turnover with investment company sub-advisors.
- The Masters' Mutual Funds group of four funds has outperformed the category average every year from 2002 through July 2006. Each fund has several highly regarded sub-advisors from other mutual fund shops. The Masters' Select Equity Fund, a large-cap blend fund, invests in the best picks of stellar managers, such as Bill Miller of Legg Mason, Chris Davis of Davis Select Advisors and Mason Hawkins of Southeastern Asset Management. The fund has outperformed the S&P 500 over the five years ending in July 2006.

Article:
fa-mag.com/news/sub-advisors-are-in-the-house-1503.html

Columbia Strategic Income is one of these funds that has a share class for every possible selling opportunity, 10 classes that I count. I put NO store in where it ranks in the Non-Traditional Bond category, since that is a garbage bin created to stick funds that don't fit some company's box. It has actually raised its expense ratio over the years (COSIX was 0.95% in 2008, now at 1.02%, which is very odd). And turnover went from 41% to 168% now. It is really a multi-sector fund, similar to TSIIX, PONDX, and even LSBDX). And it looks pretty weak compared to PONDX.
We would advocate a broad mix of bonds, with an emphasis on short durations and maturities, and concentrate on downside risk. As most of you know, I really like OSTIX and would consider it a core holding for almost every client. Also like PONDX, THIIX, and TGBAX. Perhaps a bit of FFRHX and maybe a pinch of KIFYX, and you have a very diversified mix of fixed-income offerings.

Several differences between OAKIX and FMIJX.
1. OAKIX has suffered outflows and may have reopened in order not to sell stocks to cover.
2. FMI management seems to close funds much sooner that Oakmark. FMI large cap closed years ago with only a few billion. They've since reopened but they appear to close down funds with a lot less AUM.
Just my opinion

You are of course correct. But that's difference between the fund management and stewardship and not the portfolio :-)

Several differences between OAKIX and FMIJX.
1. OAKIX has suffered outflows and may have reopened in order not to sell stocks to cover.
2. FMI management seems to close funds much sooner that Oakmark. FMI large cap closed years ago with only a few billion. They've since reopened but they appear to close down funds with a lot less AUM.
Just my opinion