Investment News seems to be putting out a bunch of top 12 (or whatever) funds. Here, it's "best-performing", not "some of the best performing". I guess I don't understand their criteria, because ISTM there are several funds that belong among these dozen:
4.5 Fidelity Blue Chip Growth (FBGRX)
5.5 Harbor Capital Appreciation (HACAX)
5.8 Vanguard Primecap (VPMAX)
7.5 Fidelity Growth Discovery (FDSVX)
8.5 Fidelity Trend (FTRNX)
8.8 T. Rowe Price Growth Stock (PRGFX)
(BTW, the ticker for Magellan is wrong - IN's error, not Ted's; should be FMAGX)
From these "magnificent dozen", one can't infer anything.
One can't infer that management skill played any role here, since these are all growth funds. The outperformance might be due to your choosing growth over value in the past year, and may have had nothing to do with the fund managers' skill.
Or skill might have had everything to do with it, and it might be easy for managers to beat the S&P 500. The list of such funds that beat the S&P 500 is clearly larger than twelve. From the information given, you don't know whether there are just six more funds or a thousand more funds that outperformed.
In short, this doesn't really serve as evidence of much of anything. It's just a somewhat random list of large cap growth funds that happened to beat the S&P 500 over an arbitrarily selected time period (ending July 27) with an arbitrarily chosen cutoff ER.

This month David provided an interesting follow-on to the merging of Marsico Flexible Capital and Marsico Global. "Briefly Noted," https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2018/08/briefly-noted-24/#more-11945. He thoughtfully researched possible alternatives to MFCFX and came up with a grid of several balanced/allocation funds. As a result, Provident Trust (PROVX) came to light and he commented, "And if you’re suddenly wondering why we haven’t profiled Provident Trust yet, join the club. I’m wondering the same thing."
I used to own MFCFX and the whole time I wondered how it got categorized as an allocation fund; for me it was a global growth fund whose mandate allowed it to invest in other "stuff." It rarely did and even today it has nothing but stocks and a bit of cash. These days M* has an 85%+ allocation category, the best fit, I think, for a fund that does in fact allocate.
Apparently PROVX would fall into that category, but M* has it pegged as Large Growth. In any event, PROVX today is a highly concentrated (14 stocks) large-cap growth fund with about 10% cash and 5% bonds. Its performance is terrific, from almost any angle, but most assuredly from the perspective of a 85%+ allocation instrument. I would compliment the fund manager on a succinct and rare summary of what he does, has done in the past, and what market conditions prevail now and into the near future. To wit: https://www.provfunds.com/docs/06.30.18 Shareholder Letter.pdf
According to the letter, the fund really has been flexible with respect to its equity allocation. I have not followed it. I guess a small fund could jump in and out of stocks efficiently, but I couldn't imagine FPACX (one of the other balanced funds used as a comparison) doing the same. Provident's turnover ratio is so impossibly low as to confound us. I hope David can profile PROVX as it sounds interesting.

HI Guys,
More evidence that beating the market is not an impossible challenge. But the odds are long against that outcome.
The percentages change over time and over investment category, but those odds hover under the 5% and less odds. Those are too low from my perspective so Index products are attractive options.
However, I still like the challenge so a small fraction of my money is committed to actively managed funds. Hope springs eternal!!! The good news for me is that I own a few of the funds that Ted provided in his summary. Probably more luck than skill.
Best Regards

FYI: With Fidelity Investments resetting the fee-war bar with its new zero-cost index funds, we thought it was time to look at the best-performing actively managed mutual funds with expense ratios below 70 basis points.
Culling data from CFRA and Morningstar, the following list includes actively-managed U.S. equity mutual funds with at least $100 million in assets.
The 12-month performance numbers are through July 27 and compare to a 16.1% return by the S&P 500 Index over the same period.
Regards,
Ted
1. PRIMECAP Odyssey Aggressive Growth (POAGX)
2. PRIMECAP Odyssey Growth (POGRX)
3. Fidelity Focused Stock (FTQGX)
4. Vanguard Explorer (VEXRX)
5. Vanguard US Growth (VWUAX)
6. Vanguard Capital Opportunity (VHCAX)
7. Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth (VMGRX)
8. Vanguard Morgan Growth (VMRAX
9. Fidelity Magellan (FAMGX)
10. American Funds Growth Fund of America (AGTHX)
11 .American Funds AMCAP (AMCPX)
12. Fidelity Fund (FFIDX)
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20180803/FREE/803009999/PH/12-low-cost-active-funds-that-are-beating-the-sp-500

GOF is a fund of funds so your expense ratio is double. The two Pimcos are excellent, but too expensive to buy now. CEFs go on sale about twice a year, and on a panicked protracted many months long selloff every 2.5 - 3 years. So be patient. Oh, and DSL has nothing going for it, but the name of its manager. NAV return is average, and it hasnt earned its distribution in a while. Overpriced by about 5-7%. Watch and study them. Don't rush.

There's a good overview of floating rate loans by one of the best SA contributors up now. The specific focus is on CEFs, but the first half or so and bits of the rest are about the sector in general.
Note the subtitle: '"Curb Your Enthusiasm." The authors point out that quality - and this is a junk sector - has been deteriorating for a while, and that next big downturn, the sector will prob'ly just about mirror HY corps. (Of course one of the pluses of loans in the past has been that they're senior to HY and tend to recover considerably more in default; ADS is saying, maybe not the next time.)
On the other hand, they say, floating loans deserve a place in portfolios, generally speaking, because of the low correlation to equity and traditional bonds.
If anyone's interested in CEFs, there's a table evaluating the field of individual funds toward the end. Caution, tho -- their evaluation parameters might not be exactly the ones others would choose.

Hey @Ted, Thanks for posting the article. Seems, Old_Skeet has been thinking much the same as I started my cash build back in June/July with my mutual fund distributions; and, I'll let my fund manages position their respective funds. It's interestingly that I've now noticed a sector rotation shift by comparing a recent Xray of my portfolio to one done back in March. Currently, the Xray shows I am light in tech, industrials and discretionary as compared to the S&P 500 Index. I'm about even in financials. With this, this means I am overweight in a good number of the other S&P 500 sectors such as utilities, energy, materials, real estate, communication services and consumer staples.

Brk is one if my favorite holding
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/invest-like-warren-buffett-with-this-8-billion-play-on-autos-14673573

The investor share of American Beacon Sound Point Floating Rate Income fund, SPFPX is available at $2,500 minimum (instead of $250K for institutional shares) and at a higher expense ratio of 1.11%.

FYI: Vanguard's not likely to react to Fidelity's move, says CIO Greg Davis.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=P_1mW8WoJsWwjwSMi5a4Bw&q=Vanguard:++++Investors+Should+Look+For+'The+Catch'+In+Fidelity's+No-Fee+Fund&oq=Vanguard:++++Investors+Should+Look+For+'The+Catch'+In+Fidelity's+No-Fee+Fund&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3512.3512.0.4637.3.2.0.0.0.0.82.82.1.2.0....0...1.2.64.psy-ab..1.1.68.6..35i39k1.68.dTXEnh1wTXs

Hi @Mark, I have to say my above example was borderline. But ... Just as Duke Energy "lied" to the North Carolina Utility Commission in their merger with Progress Energy and just hours after the merger they fired the new CEO who was Bill Johnson & CEO from Progress Energy. Mr. Johnson was suppose to run the new company under an agreement with the commission. They replaced him with Lynn Good ... I cut and ran. What a hood wink! And, they got heavily fined. He received a nice termination package and, in time, became the CEO of TVA. I owned shares in both companies. Again, what a hood wink job on the commission. Today, this still lingers in the minds of many folks. Myself being one of them and I think their action back then still impacts their relationship with the commission.
I'd also have to say being light technology by about 9% (I'm @14%) from its S&P 500 Index weighting (it is @ about 23%) is more than a rebalance. In addition, I'm light consumer discretionary, industrials, and healthcare. I'm overweight materials, real estate, consumer staples, energy, utilities and communication services. I'm about equal weight in financials with the Index.
A normal sector weighting for me in a major sector is 9% with no major being greater than 15% or so. For a minor sector a normal weighting for me is 5% with no minor being greater than 8%, or so. This means that there is a sizeable amount (about 17%) that can be spread to overweight sectors from my normal weightings.
Anyway, this is how I roll when it comes to my sector weightings.

@MJG - Thanks,
Yep - My original post mentioned not being able to identify the author. Later I did learn his name and position with IAG and so corrected that. There were some redundancies I weeded out as well. Apologize for throwing you a knuckle ball. You handled it like an expert.
So Mr. Chisholm graduated from college in ‘99 with an economics degree ...
These young ones - still in college at the height of the 90s boom - really don’t have the same perspective as you, me and some others here who’ve been investing and following the trends for 50+ years since the ‘60s. The inflation of the 70s & 80s, seeing gold soar from $35-$500, the Volcker years, the tech bubble & wreck, and October 19, 1987 all influenced my perspective. Mr. Chisholm did live through the ‘08-‘09 collapse. But I fear the unusually strong and rapid recovery may well have taught him and many the wrong lesson.
A degree in economics is nice. I’d be more impressed with a CFP and a bit more experience out in the field. I probably should not have referenced your source as an advertisement. While it does have some promotional attributes (plugging for his firm) I think the content was well intended. I continue to be a bit agitated when anyone tosses out that corellation between trading frequency and poor performance. While that’s a part of the picture, it’s not the whole picture.
Great biking day here in northern Michigan.
Wishing you good investing.

“Individuals make decisions every day with their emotions assisting their judgment. It is part of who we are as human beings. Unfortunately making emotional decisions can be a detriment in the investing world. Individual investors who let their emotions guide them have a much harder time investing than people who have found ways to master their emotional decision making. Some investors try to master their emotional involvement by using a rules-based system, others use computers to make the decisions for them, and still others invest in indexes through ETFs or mutual funds. There are many ways to remove the emotional component from investing, but most investors don’t realize that their emotions are the problem. You can read my post about fear and greed investing or investing is not gambling to learn more.”
The link MJG posted is an advertisement for Investment Advisory Group. The writer’s name is Kirk Chisholm. He’s employed by Investment Advisory Group. I’ve noted the qualifications he provided at bottom. No accredited instructions or degrees are listed. No reference to specialized training in either finance or psychology is indicated.
(1) Correlative statistics: The writer cites statistics showing a correlation between poor investment outcomes and frequency of trading (higher trading being associated with poorer performance). I dont think many would doubt that correlation. It’s pretty widely accepted.
(2) Assumptions The writer makes numerous assumptions about the psychology of different investors which (presumably) led to some engaging in higher than average trading. What are the writer’s qualifications re human psychology? It’s a big leap to go from the correlation between trading frequency and performance to the particular psychology which led to that. At that point you’re likely delving into problems like compulsive personalities, low educational attainment, delusional thinking - and quite possibly substance abuse, gambling addiction and dysfunctional families. I don’t know what leads some investors to trade so frequently. I don’t think the author knows either. I’d suggest the he and his firm stick to dispensing investment advice.
(3) Causal relationship - I don’t think he’s demonstrated that convincingly. It is equally possible that those who trade frequently are poor money managers to begin with and would still have found a way to lose money in the markets. Their heightened trading activity might be more a consequence of more serious underlying issues (including financial) rather than the cause of their predicament. So, was the frequent trading the cause of their problem or was it the result of other problems?
Author: Kirk Chisholm is a Wealth Manager and Principal at Innovative Advisory Group (IAG). His roles at IAG are co-chair of the Investment Committee and Head of the Traditional Investment Risk Management Group. His background and areas of focus are portfolio management and investment analysis in both the traditional and non-traditional investment markets.
-
I liked this thread in general. To me it does not appear to be about frequent trading. I suspect Old Skeet was more interested in that 2, 3 or 5% of an investor’s decisions based on strong conviction for / against a particular opportunity. “Doubling down” is a treacherous path to making money which nearly everyone has previously noted. “Cut and run” references selling a bad investment or fund. If you’ve invested for more than 50 years without ever making a bad investment (one you needed to sell) you are indeed fortunate.

My floating rate fund (GIFAX) makes up about 15% of my income sleeve, has a yield of about 4%, and is the year-to-date total return leader within its sleeve of six funds which also consist of BAICX, CTFAX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX Interestingly, year-to-date, only two of the above funds GIFAX and CTFAX have out performed my money market fund GBAXX. Seems, there might be somthing to the saying ... Cash is King ... at least for the near term.

Mine too. But it pays 5+ seven-day yield.
As long as it stays steady, I’m good.

I know it's just another number but $1 trillion for one company--wow! That makes Apple's market capitalization on par with Pakistan's 2017 GDP, a nation with a population of 193 million people:
https://cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
Meanwhile Apple employs 123,000: https://statista.com/statistics/273439/number-of-employees-of-apple-since-2005/
Even more remarkable, if Apple were a country's market, it would be worth more than Brazil's, South Africa's and the Netherlands' and right behind Korea's, making it the 13th largest market in the world for one company:
https://indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/CM.MKT.LCAP.CD/rankings

FYI: U.S. stocks traded mostly higher on Thursday, as investors set aside concerns over trade issues between the U.S. and China and focused on a batch of corporate results that largely beat expectations.
Both the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite were lifted by a rally in technology stocks, as Apple Inc. briefly crossed the threshold necessary to give it a $1 trillion market cap.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-01/asia-stocks-head-for-weaker-start-treasuries-drop-markets-wrap
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/apple-hits-1-trillion-mark-boosts-nasdaq-and-sp-idUSKBN1KN1KP
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-apple-sturm-ruger/
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-benchmarks-poised-to-slump-as-trade-angst-rattles-global-markets-2018-08-02/print
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/us-markets-trade-concerns-resurface-and-earnings-due.html
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/bonds-and-fixed-income-central-banks-data-and-trade-in-focus.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/forex-market-dollar-moves-and-trade-tensions-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/oil-market-us-crude-inventories-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/gold-market-dollar-moves-in-focus.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Positive
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Cliff believes in socialism but only for the rich:
https://vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/libertarian-hedge-funder-accepts-35-million-aid
https://nytimes.com/2016/11/22/business/dealbook/investment-funds-get-millions-to-stay-in-connecticut.html?smid=tw-dealbook&smtyp=cur

@Old_Joe. Exactly. Sometimes an observation is an observation. The extreme version of this is some people at work who say things like "I find this interesting" - means absolutely nothing and they could have just kept their mouths shut.
Now I own all 3 funds, but frankly, one reason to own FMI is to not have to bother with knowing how they invest. Investing with an active manager means to trust them. It does not matter how intelligent they are as long as they perform for you.
Finally, what I want to know is given S&P 500 is market weighted in first place, wouldn't it be normal to expect few stocks to dominate performance? Whether it is 5 or 15, both are fractions of 500. I really don't think it helps individual investor anyway regarding how to invest. I'm not any more appalled it is 5 stocks than it would be if it was 15 stocks.
PS - I've been taking profits in FMI funds and buying back too? When my ANALysis told me international was tanking I sold. Recently I bought FMIJX again.

Fidelity ZERO Total Market Index Fund & Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund filing:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/35315/000137949118003935/filing836.htm