msf, I am sorry you feel my numbers are suspect. I pulled them two weeks ago. So, lets look at them again. I just got off the Fidelity website. Hot off the press.
10 year Moderate Allocation Funds = 322 funds VBINX is #24 or top 7.4%.
10 year All Allocation Funds = 1195 funds VBINX is #36 or top 3.0%.
10 year Allocation (no categories) = 1709 funds VBINX is #36 or top 2.1%.
I will let you pick how you want to view it because it is your money not mine you are investing.
My thesis is this: Can you say you can pick the top 3.0% to 7.4% of all balanced funds over the next 10 years that will outperform VBINX? That's 97% to 92.65% actively managed outperformance. How many of your 25 will fall prey to my risks mentioned in my post above? How many of those managers will still even be there 10 years from now? I will check on the 322 number to see how it does over time.
I am not fixated on VBINX. Any 60/40 index will do. FBALX is 60% equity like VBINX.
Thanks for all the comments and good luck amigos. Anybody watching "Billions" on Showtime tonight????

VBINX (a simple 60/40 fund) is ranked #16 out of all 1194 Allocation (Balanced) funds based on Fidelity's Mutual Fund research site over the last 10 years. Therefore 98.6% of all the CFA's, MBA's, ChFA and PhD's portfolio managers cannot outperform a simple low cost index. Why do we even spend time discussing the best funds?
Over any 1, 3, 5 or 10 year timeframe compared to only Moderate Allocation OR all Allocation funds, VBINX is better than 89.5% of any actively managed fund. Amazing. The really great managers are rare.

It is not clear how you arrived at these precise numbers. Here's Fidelity's fund screener for

all the allocation funds (i.e. all share classes) it carries. I get 1,870 funds. But if I sort on 10 year returns (so that all the share classes that haven't been around drop to the bottom), I get "just" 865. And that includes multiple share classes per fund.
My best guess is that you may have used Fidelity's screener to pick all subcategories of Allocation funds with "Allocation" in their name: Conservative, Aggressive, Moderate, Tactical, and World. If one does this and excludes funds that are closed at Fidelity (the screener's default - good for shopping but less so for research), that results in 1195 share classes. Close enough since these figures can shift on a daily basis.
In this cohort, VBINX isn't even Vanguard's best fund, based on 10 year performance. That goes to Wellesley VWINX. (Actually the top two Vanguard share classes would both be Wellesley, except that Fidelity doesn't sell VWIAX).
Note that I haven't disagreed with your thesis, but with your numbers. From a scientific method perspective they are suspect because they're not easily reproducible. Also, extreme figures invite inspection, and a small deviation can cast doubt up the greater thesis, rightly or wrongly.
Had you suggested that 80% or so of actively managed allocation funds did not do as well over ten years, I likely wouldn't have even looked at the data. Fidelity's own page on VBINX says that over 10 years, it beat 88% of 500 other (501 total) moderate allocation funds. Which means that over 10 years, there were about 60 moderate allocation funds (let alone other types of allocation funds) that beat VBINX. Four times as many as the fifteen implied by a #16 ranking for VBINX.
Just so we don't confuse funds and share classes, out of those 1195 funds I could coax out of Fidelity's screener, the funds (not share classes) ranking above VBINX include:
(1) Columbia Balanced (CBLAX and CBCLX), (2) John Hancock Balanced (SVBIX),
(3) Wellesley (VWINX), (4) Janus Balanced (JABAX),
(5) AMG Chicago Equity Partners Balanced (MBESX and MBEAX)),
(6) Loomis Sayles Global E&I (LSWWX and LGMAX), (7) Berwyn Income (BERIX),
(8) Boston Trust Asset Mgmt (BTBFX), (9) First Eagle Global (SGIIX and SGENX),
(10) Intrepid Capital (ICMVX and ICMBX), (11) LKCM Balanced (LKBAX), (12) Ivy Balanced (IBNAX),
(13) Wells Fargo Index Asset Allocation (WFAIX and SFAAX), (14) Mairs & Power Balanced (MPAOX),
(15) Transamerica Multi-Managed Balanced (TBLIX and IBALX),
(16) American Funds American Balanced (ABALX), (17) Tributary Balanced (FBOPX & FOBAX),
(18) Hennesy E&I (HEIFX), (19) Westwood Inc. Opp (WHGIX and WWIAX),
(20) Thornburg Investment Inc. (TIBIX), (21) Puritan (FPURX), (22) FPA Crescent (FPACX),
(23) Eaton Vance Balanced (EIIFX), (24) Oakmark E&I (OAKBX), and (25) Ivy Asset Strategy (WASAX).
T. Rowe Price Cap Ap (PRWCX and PACLX) would be at the top of the list, except that it is a closed fund, and I had to exclude closed funds to come close to your 1194 fund count. Likewise, Vanguard's other "vanilla" actively managed allocation fund - Wellington - would have come out ahead of VBINX also, except that Fidelity thinks it is a closed fund. (It's not, but you can't open a new position at Fidelity.)
If we throw out the four world allocation funds (Loomis Sayles Global, First Eagle Global, Thornburg Investment Income, and Ivy Asset Strategy), we're still left with 21 distinct funds, let alone share classes outperforming VBINX over ten years. Well more than 15 funds, and all the remaining funds are conservative, moderate, or aggressive allocation funds - no offbeat stuff like convertibles.
If I had a better idea of how you're getting your figures (or to put it another way, what factors you're looking at), it would be easier to discuss. You started with a Vanguard (marketed) fund, so one could easily ask: at Vanguard, why even look at Vanguard-managed funds (VBINX, VGSTX), when the Wellington-managed funds (Wellesley, Wellington) have done better?

Interesting analysis. Since VBINX is considered a moderate allocation fund, did you compare it with other moderate allocation for tax-adjusted returns over 10 years? As we all know. taxes can play a large part in determining the ultimate returns. I plugged in a few of the funds compared to VBINX for a 10-year tax adjusted returns and they don't hold up. For example, BERIX, TIBIX and MAPOX were behind VBINX. I didn't even look at your entire list, just popped in a few for analysis. Some investors hold balanced funds in taxable accounts so tax-adjusted returns should be taken into consideration for those who do.

VBINX (a simple 60/40 fund) is ranked #16 out of all 1194 Allocation (Balanced) funds based on Fidelity's Mutual Fund research site over the last 10 years. Therefore 98.6% of all the CFA's, MBA's, ChFA and PhD's portfolio managers cannot outperform a simple low cost index. Why do we even spend time discussing the best funds?
Over any 1, 3, 5 or 10 year timeframe compared to only Moderate Allocation OR all Allocation funds, VBINX is better than 89.5% of any actively managed fund. Amazing. The really great managers are rare.

It is not clear how you arrived at these precise numbers. Here's Fidelity's fund screener for all the allocation funds (i.e. all share classes) it carries. I get 1,870 funds. But if I sort on 10 year returns (so that all the share classes that haven't been around drop to the bottom), I get "just" 865. And that includes multiple share classes per fund.
My best guess is that you may have used Fidelity's screener to pick all subcategories of Allocation funds with "Allocation" in their name: Conservative, Aggressive, Moderate, Tactical, and World. If one does this and excludes funds that are closed at Fidelity (the screener's default - good for shopping but less so for research), that results in 1195 share classes. Close enough since these figures can shift on a daily basis.
In this cohort, VBINX isn't even Vanguard's best fund, based on 10 year performance. That goes to Wellesley VWINX. (Actually the top two Vanguard share classes would both be Wellesley, except that Fidelity doesn't sell VWIAX).
Note that I haven't disagreed with your thesis, but with your numbers. From a scientific method perspective they are suspect because they're not easily reproducible. Also, extreme figures invite inspection, and a small deviation can cast doubt up the greater thesis, rightly or wrongly.
Had you suggested that 80% or so of actively managed allocation funds did not do as well over ten years, I likely wouldn't have even looked at the data. Fidelity's own page on VBINX says that over 10 years, it beat 88% of 500 other (501 total) moderate allocation funds. Which means that over 10 years, there were about 60 moderate allocation funds (let alone other types of allocation funds) that beat VBINX. Four times as many as the fifteen implied by a #16 ranking for VBINX.
Just so we don't confuse funds and share classes, out of those 1195 funds I could coax out of Fidelity's screener, the funds (not share classes) ranking above VBINX include:
(1) Columbia Balanced (CBLAX and CBCLX), (2) John Hancock Balanced (SVBIX),
(3) Wellesley (VWINX), (4) Janus Balanced (JABAX),
(5) AMG Chicago Equity Partners Balanced (MBESX and MBEAX)),
(6) Loomis Sayles Global E&I (LSWWX and LGMAX), (7) Berwyn Income (BERIX),
(8) Boston Trust Asset Mgmt (BTBFX), (9) First Eagle Global (SGIIX and SGENX),
(10) Intrepid Capital (ICMVX and ICMBX), (11) LKCM Balanced (LKBAX), (12) Ivy Balanced (IBNAX),
(13) Wells Fargo Index Asset Allocation (WFAIX and SFAAX), (14) Mairs & Power Balanced (MPAOX),
(15) Transamerica Multi-Managed Balanced (TBLIX and IBALX),
(16) American Funds American Balanced (ABALX), (17) Tributary Balanced (FBOPX & FOBAX),
(18) Hennesy E&I (HEIFX), (19) Westwood Inc. Opp (WHGIX and WWIAX),
(20) Thornburg Investment Inc. (TIBIX), (21) Puritan (FPURX), (22) FPA Crescent (FPACX),
(23) Eaton Vance Balanced (EIIFX), (24) Oakmark E&I (OAKBX), and (25) Ivy Asset Strategy (WASAX).
T. Rowe Price Cap Ap (PRWCX and PACLX) would be at the top of the list, except that it is a closed fund, and I had to exclude closed funds to come close to your 1194 fund count. Likewise, Vanguard's other "vanilla" actively managed allocation fund - Wellington - would have come out ahead of VBINX also, except that Fidelity thinks it is a closed fund. (It's not, but you can't open a new position at Fidelity.)
If we throw out the four world allocation funds (Loomis Sayles Global, First Eagle Global, Thornburg Investment Income, and Ivy Asset Strategy), we're still left with 21 distinct funds, let alone share classes outperforming VBINX over ten years. Well more than 15 funds, and all the remaining funds are conservative, moderate, or aggressive allocation funds - no offbeat stuff like convertibles.
If I had a better idea of how you're getting your figures (or to put it another way, what factors you're looking at), it would be easier to discuss. You started with a Vanguard (marketed) fund, so one could easily ask: at Vanguard, why even look at Vanguard-managed funds (VBINX, VGSTX), when the Wellington-managed funds (Wellesley, Wellington) have done better?

All good stuff.
Umm ... I happened on those 3 balanced funds more or less by chance. PRWCX looked like a more conservative & better diversified offering compared to PRFDX when it opened in the 90s. All my $$ was at Price in an employee sponsored plan at that time. DODBX was appealing about a dozen years ago for its low .52% ER, for being a privately owned firm that often steps to a different drummer, and for very low turnover. Don't know why I like OAKBX and PRPFX, but for some reason they allow me to sleep better at night.
Point was that I wasn't cherry-picking here. Just happened to own these more or less by chance. Two are competitive with VBINX at 10-years and all four outpaced it easily over 15 years. I like longer periods like 15 years. However you could also argue to the contrary that shorter time frames give a better indication of current management's abilities.
Never owned Vanguard so can't comment on the intangibles. But in selecting a fund house they are important. Price is hard to beat for customer service, low minimums and ability to exchange shares. The others I mentioned are handicapped by a smaller stable of investments but like Price also have low minimums.
Beta? Interesting stats. Afraid I rarely track that. With actively managed funds beta can vary greatly from year to year along with management's current outlook. Oakmark was hurt when they decided to de-emphasize long term government bonds couple years ago. Added to volatility, but they felt bonds had had their run.
Welcome aboard. Great handle Shipwreckedalone.

@MFO Members: Always remember age before beauty! How about the granddaddy of all balanced funds, WVELX who's average annual return since inception some 87 years ago is 8.18%.
Regards,
Ted
P.S. It's actively managed

Bee, yes I agree with you that VTMFX is also great choice looking back. 70/30 or 60/40 is our choice over the next 10 years due to potential rising rates IMHO but we have been saying that for the last decade.

1. Nothing to write home about ....assumes the investor is predisposed to balanced fund level of risk/beta. No 100% equity funds. 2. I do not believe I am capable of picking the top 1.4% managers as you have done. I could not pick the top 1.4% over the next ten years of anything for that matter. Risks: manager leaves or asset size balloons to the point of reducing overall returns OR fund closes to new investors which makes removes it as an option OR the BERIX syndrome whereby you sell your reputation OR you don't know what you don't know. 3. I agree with PRWCX. This is the rare management I speak of. 4. Both OAKBX and DODBX were my favs for many years also but I removed them because the beta of these funds rose as well as returns are begging to fade.
DODBX 1 year -4.19% 3 year 7.40% 5 year 8.06% Beta now = 1.20.
OAKBX 1 year -6.77% 3 year 5.33% 5 year 5.55% Beta = 1.19.
VBINX 1 year -1.69% 3 year 7.04% 5 year 7.64% Beta = 0.97.
My beloved FPACX is also showing sign of cracking. sigh.
The biggest risk to VBINX is rapidly rising rates, but that would affect most of the Allocation category but still would hurt overall returns. I belive declining rates have been a huge tailwind to Allocation fund returns for decades. Thanks for your feedback.

Hi Hank. I don't think you are saying anything different than shipwrecked is, really. You picked some of the best funds in the business to compare. You will find fund managers that have outperformed this index fund over chosen time frames. But you will find many many more that have not. Using his statistics, that would be 1069 moderately balanced funds out there that someone must be investing in that can not beat the index.
I don't own VBINX, but looking at the 1, 3, 5 and 10 year rankings within category, this fund is amazingly consistent. At these time periods, VBINX has been ranked in the top 8-12% in category. Never worst than top 12% over 1, 3, 5, 10 year periods!!! That's pretty damn consistent. You can not say the same about OAKBX, DODBX, FPACX or especially PRPFX over the last 1, 3, 5 and 10 years.
Anyway, from what I get out of this post, I think the whole idea here is we here at MFO do make the fund game more complex than what it probably needs to be. Heck, I think this is what Ed Studzinski has been saying in his commentaries for some time now.

VBINX: 5.97% and 5.17% for 10 & 15 years respectively?
That's fine - but nothing to write home about. I get your drift that VBINX has out-performed most balanced funds. It's hard to beat Vanguard's low ERs. Probably a fine investment for many.
For comparison, I checked three actively managed balanced funds at M* which I have long owned. All three trounced VBINX over 15 years, despite having higher fees. Admittedly, these nay not adhere as strictly to a 60/40 blend as VBINX does - but under normal circumstances 60/40 is a close approximation.
VBINX: 5.97% & 5.17% - 10/15 year
DODBX: 4.64% & 6.30% - 10/15 year
PRWCX: 7.73% & 8.88% - 10/15 year
OAKBX: 5.97% & 7.27% - 10/15 year
And here's one that's decidedly not a balanced fund, but also appealing to conservative investors and having a superior 15 year return compared to VBINX.
PRPFX: 5.10% & 7.33% - 10/15 year

VBINX (a simple 60/40 fund) is ranked #16 out of all 1194 Allocation (Balanced) funds based on Fidelity's Mutual Fund research site over the last 10 years. Therefore 98.6% of all the CFA's, MBA's, ChFA and PhD's portfolio managers cannot outperform a simple low cost index. Why do we even spend time discussing the best funds?
Over any 1, 3, 5 or 10 year timeframe compared to only Moderate Allocation OR all Allocation funds, VBINX is better than 89.5% of any actively managed fund. Amazing. The really great managers are rare.

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
For seven years in a row, U.S. investors have sent more money to Vanguard Group, the world's largest mutual fund company, than any of its rivals, says fund-tracker Morningstar Inc.
The Malvern-based company now controls 5 percent of every stock exchange-listed U.S. company.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20160214_Vanguard__An_investment_leader_that_keeps_streamlining.html

I wonder if any of these other guys have "hedge Fund" ideas before the Securities and Exchange Commission
Top fund managers can't catch a break
Some formerly hot hands like Legg Mason's Bill Miller have gone cold
Feb 10, 2016 @ 4:23 pm
By John Waggoner
Mr. Miller clawed his way back with Legg Mason Opportunity, driving the fund to a 40% gain in 2012 and a 68% gain in 2013. But the current market correction has clobbered the fund, sending it down 27.9% this year through Monday,
Another big name with big losses: G. Kenneth Heebner, manager of CGM Focus fund (CGMFX), which is down 25.10%. Mr. Heebner, one of the top managers of the 1990s, has had a rotten decade
Baron Partners fund (BPTRX), the eponymous $1.6 billion fund run by Ron Baron since 1992, has shed 23.47% this year.
Federated Kaufman Small Cap (FKASX), overseen by legendary small-cap investor Hans Utsch, has fallen 24.80% this year
Jacob Small Cap Growth Fund (JSCGX), run by former dot-com investing star Ryan Jacob, has plunged 26.79% this year and 40.87% over the past 12 months, according to Morningstar. (Jacob Internet, in contrast, has fallen 22.55% in 2016 and 14.71% the past 12 months).
It's been a rough ride for Jacob. The fund has not risen above the 99th percentile for the past one, three and five years
Messrs Miller, Heebner, Baron, Jacob and Levine could not be immediately reached for comment.
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160210/FREE/160219987?template=printart

For what it's worth, Bob Brinker sent out a stock market Buy Alert ("market attractive for purchase") two days ago on Wednesday evening to his Market Timer newsletter subscribers. I don't subscribe, but I know somebody who does. Brinker rarely gives a buy or a sell signal, sometimes going years between signals.
I remember his signal to buy the Nasdaq 100 in 2000 during a pause in the tech stock debacle. The markets resumed plunging and those who bought on his signal and held on had to wait 15 years to break even.

He was bullish in 2008 and kept expecting all time highs by the end of the year. He knows about as much as you, me, and the man in the moon. While it helps to be articulate and knowledgeable in many fields of complex endeavors, the stock market is not one of them. Maybe because the stock market is not as complex as it is made out to be.

For what it's worth, Bob Brinker sent out a stock market Buy Alert ("market attractive for purchase") two days ago on Wednesday evening to his Market Timer newsletter subscribers. I don't subscribe, but I know somebody who does. Brinker rarely gives a buy or a sell signal, sometimes going years between signals.
I remember his signal to buy the Nasdaq 100 in 2000 during a pause in the tech stock debacle. The markets resumed plunging and those who bought on his signal and held on had to wait 15 years to break even.

When did he send out a sell alert?

For what it's worth, Bob Brinker sent out a stock market Buy Alert ("market attractive for purchase") two days ago on Wednesday evening to his Market Timer newsletter subscribers. I don't subscribe, but I know somebody who does. Brinker rarely gives a buy or a sell signal, sometimes going years between signals.
I remember his signal to buy the Nasdaq 100 in 2000 during a pause in the tech stock debacle. The markets resumed plunging and those who bought on his signal and held on had to wait 15 years to break even.

Dead Cat Bounce?

Depends which cat you mean.
- Oil's been dragging bottom for over a year. Suspect we're plumming the bottom somewhere in the $25+ area.
- I'm not convinced re stocks. And the move today doesn't look that convincing to me. Could rally for a few days than fall back.
- Gold's unpredictable. Might as well go to Vegas and throw your money on the craps tables. I'll agree, however, with those who believe financial chaos and a weaker dollar tend to bolster its attractiveness. Having a bit of exposure has helped me in recent months.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert. My forecasts over the years have a 50-50 success/failure ratio. I am not a market timer and do not normally attempt to time markets nor have I ever been affiliated with any market timers or market timing strategies.

As in past history of investment products that can't go wrong, I have a feeling that the fool proof diversification models used by the Robo models will be surprised by the close correlation of the decline in world markets ( including the U.S. markets ) and the returns will suffer for it. For the premise was that emerging / international market performance was supposed to offset / be uncorrelated to a decline in U.S. market ( by emerg / int'l rising ala QE schemes and monetary stimulation or such that has happened in the past ) . Yet the world is mired in a deflation of commodity prices and persistent slow or negative growth. Many brilliant investors have built reasonably big positions in the international markets over the last 4 -5 years with little to show for it ( Ray Dalio being one ).
A fair amount of fanfare and assets flowing into these Robo accounts over the last couple years ... Reminds me of the tech bubble funds ...

FYI: fter five years in the business, robo-advisor Betterment thinks it has a handle on what stresses out ETF investors and what works in de-stressing them.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/etfs/what-are-etf-investors-asking-big-robo-advisor-in-a-tough-market/

vkt:
I will simplify what you have written a bit. Selecting the preferred presidential candidate from amongst the Republican and Democratic nominating races is as easy as "ABC":
ABC = Anyone But Cruz
All of the candidates in both parties certainly have their warts and their detractors but a Ted Cruz presidency would be an unmitigated disaster. He represents the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, an evangelical nutcase without any understanding of or respect for the constitutional separation of church and state - one of the most important foundations of this country. He is also the meanest, nastiest, and most destructive person to serve in the Senate in the past 30 years, and that is truly saying something. His entire senatorial career has been to obstruct and destroy - he is an anarchist. Fortunately, he is as hated in the mainstream Republican Party as he is outside of it and I doubt his nomination would attract significant support or money from mainstream Republican sources. Unfortunately, the misanthrope Koch brothers would gladly pick up the financial slack but that is probably where his support would end.

vkt, Nothing like that that either my husband or I can remember. We never bought anything for the car anywhere (except gas the Chevron station down the street). Not important anyway. Maybe it was insurance or DMV. And, maybe I did do something that I don't recall. I paid cash for the car two years before I got the Amazon card.