(Curiously, I was able to read it directly; no tricks, no special software. Though I am on a new machine, and Barron's might be counting articles.)
A nit to pick: FBTCX and FBIOX are not different share classes of the same fund, but shares of two different, albeit it similar funds. (For example, they have a different #3 holding as of 6/30/18.)
I agree that which share class you look at likely does affect investor return data. As I commented in this thread, the selling point for C shares is that they are supposedly better for people who only want to own the shares for a year or two. (Or even less.)
So it might be interesting to look M (formerly T) shares or A shares of Fidelity Advisor Biotech. Since M* doesn't have 10 year investor data for A shares ($787million), I pulled up the investor data for M shares ($127million). Despite the small share class size.
Small funds (under $500K) were excluded in the article because they are more likely to have erratic cash flows making their performance too volatile. All well and good.But that's not a reason to exclude share classes of large funds. The small size of a share class doesn't affect the fund performance. If anything, because a share class is small, its investors will have a smaller impact on the fund performance.
Over the ten year period ending 6/30/18, M* reports:
FBIOX: 12.73% (investor return), 17.15% (fund return) - matches Barron's reported M* data
FBTTX: 11.88% (investor return), 15.86% (fund return)
FBTCX: 5.97% (investor return), 15.35% (fund return) - matches Barron's reported M* data
Similar gaps between investor returns and fund returns for FBIOX and FBTTX. So at least here, it doesn't look like the existence of a load or the popularity of a fund matter. What might matter more is whether the shares are designed/marketed for shorter term trading (such as C shares).
More generally there are various confounding factors that aren't sorted out. Do investors do well in cheaper funds because they have more patience when the fund costs less (as speculated)? Or perhaps it is because "high expense funds have much more volatile risk-adjusted returns", and it's just the volatility that affects investor behavior?
Livingston, Zhou, 2016, The Volatility of Mutual Fund Performance, http://www.fmaconferences.org/Vegas/Papers/QUANTILE-12-31-2015.pdf

@MFO Members: Six funds with these percentages.
Regards,
Ted
IVV=36.5%
PONCX=20.9%
QQQ=20.6%
MSOPX=10.9%
TRBCX=8.0%
MVRXX=2.8%
YTD Returns:
QQQ-17.60%
TRBCX= 16.70%
MSOPX= 10.94%
IVV= 8.69%
PONCX= -(.78%)
MVRXX=$1.00= Yield 1.83%

@Old_Skeet, Thanks for sharing your most recent portfolio. I am always struck by your organization of sleeves. Again, an allocation question for you.
Within your individual sleeves do you adjust allocation within the sleeve...say AOFAX has out performed your other two holdings in the sleeve...is there ever a reason to reallocate gains from one fund within the sleeve to the other funds?
Also, I am personally trying to achieve a portfolio that holds funds that have at least a five percent (5%) overall weighting in my portfolio, but no more than a 20% weighting. So, this could mean as many as 20 funds (at 5% each) or no less than 5 funds (at 20% each). Your individual fund weightings must be part of you design as well. With so many funds how do you weight their importance in the overall portfolio?
I mention this because some investors have a well diversified equity portfolio with one fund (VTI) and others have a very concentrated equity portfolio with 50 funds.
Finally, have you explored correlation of your sleeves? Is one sleeve more correlated say to the equity market, the bond market, or alternatives? Do you have a recipe for the percentage of these non-correlated assets in your portfolio?

Hi @bee, I open my position in AOFAX in the spring of this year by doing a nav exchange from some of my SPECX into it as SPECX had grown to a sizeable position within its sleeve and portfolio. This was done commission free. Currently, AOFAX is still under construction and will be capped at about a 25% weighting within it's sleeve. Since, I take all fund distributions to cash this in of itself helps keep funds like this with explosive growth in check thus limiting the need to often manually rebalance. Generally, no fund within the growth area is greater than two percent of the overall portfolio with the exception that SPECX is the largest fund in the growth area at about 3% of the overall portfolio while AOFAX currently less than 1%. So, there is room to do some more nav exchanges from SPECX into AOFAX and let AOFAX run. By the way the two largest sleeves in the growth area are my large/mid cap sleeve and my specialty & theme sleeve. Combined they account for about 60% of the growth area while the other two sleeves account for the remaining 40%. Currently, there is no spiff investment position.
Below is my portfolio holdings of late.
Last revised: 08/24/2018 Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weighting are cash area 20%, income area 30%, growth & income area 35% and growth area & other assets 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assesment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. In addition, I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve and as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements along with other Morningstar reports and the fund fact sheets to follow my investments.
CASH AREA (Portfolio Weighting Range 15% to 25% with neutral being 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve ... (Savings & Time Deposits)
INCOME AREA (Portfolio Weighting Range 25% to 35% with neutral being 30%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: BAICX, CTFAX, GIFAX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX (CTFAX under review partial nav exch sell)
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, DIFAX, FISCX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX, PCGAX & PGBAX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA (Portfolio Weighting Range 30% to 40% with neutral being 35%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX (DWGAX under review for nav exch buy)
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, PMAIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, SVAAX (INUTX under review for nav exch buy)
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, FBLAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
GROWTH AREA (Portfolio Weighting Range 10% to 20% with neutral being 15%)
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, FWAFX & SMCWX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, NEWFX, PCLAX & PGUAX (NEWFX under review partial nav exch sell)
Spiff Sleeve: No position engaged at this time.

Hi @ DavidV, I also own AOFAX and according to Morningstar has it's ytd at 40.51% and rolling 1 year at 55.21%. I'm thinking there are probally some other funds that got missed as well.

It didn't get missed. "Here are 10 funds that have turned $100 into $150 or more in the last 12 months ending Aug. 17, 2018."
According to this Morningstar chart, $10,000 in AOFAX on Aug. 17, 2017 grew to $14,640.26 as of Aug. 17, 2018. So $100 turned into $146.03, not quite the requisite $150. It didn't make the cut.
While that's sufficient explanation, it's possible that the returns analyzed included the effect of loads. AOFAX carries a 5.25% load (though you can purchase it with the load waived). None of the ten tickers listed are load shares.
For example LOGWX is class F-3, the cleanest, lowest cost share class you can get. The appropriate share class to check for Alger Small Cap Focus would be AGOZX, though that doesn't make the grade, either.

FYI: Asset managers are hawking free products and services as if they were carnival barkers. JPMorganoffers free stock trades; Fidelity boasts about its zero-cost index funds; Vanguard is waiving trading costs for exchange-traded funds. The appeal is simple: Costs—whether incurred by buying and selling a fund, or imposed through an annual expense ratio—eat into returns. But there’s another, surprising benefit: Cheap funds may save you from your worst impulses.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/best-mutual-funds-for-investors-cheap-and-boring-1535145075

@DavidV and @Old_Skeet actually impressive 3 year returns. Do you have a strategy to reallocate your out sized gains? This fund (I charted AOFIX) has out performed both mid-cap and small-cap growth indexes since it's most recent bottom starting around 2/12/2016. Do you see this continuing in the Small/Mid cap growth space?

FYI: Daniel Sundheim built a reputation as savvy stockpicker at Viking Global Investors, a hedge fund where he helped oversee $32 billion in assets. That helped him raise more than $4 billion in seed money when he launched his own fund in July.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/even-wall-street-pros-have-a-tough-time-getting-into-this-club-1535143468

Howdy doc,
Not surprising. Strong dollar has had the greatest impact, but also some lessening of demand due to bitcoin. feh.
I will stay with my decades old call that everyone needs to have some precious metals in their wealth portfolio: 3-7 % as a safety net for WTF.
As for secure storage, please realize that a tube of American Gold Eagles is worth about 25K and is 2" tall and the size of a quarter. It will fit easily inside the oatmeal container [just make sure it's Red Mill and not full of Roundup).
And so it goes,
peace,
rono

Hi @ DavidV, I also own AOFAX and according to Morningstar has it's ytd at 40.51% and rolling 1 year at 55.21%. I'm thinking there are probally some other funds that got missed as well.

I own ETIHX which I purchased at a bad time in 2015, right before the bio's dipped. I was going to sell, but didn't. Now I'm up 50%. With a relatively concentrated position of 70 or so stocks, they look to be good analysts in this space.
No leverage, but it does go into small bio's and is definitely a "risk-on" trade. Paring this with a combination of VGHCX could make a reasonable barbell position in healthcare as relates to risk. When the overall market takes a dive in the next 2 years or so, I'll be adding to this fund to make it a full position. Not for the squeamish though.
FWIW, I agree with the comments above on leverage. I make enough bad decisions without magnifying them.

@Hank, what alternative funds are you invested in? Were they around in 2008-early 9 for the great recession so that they have a performance tract record during the worst of economic times? Just curious how they performed over that stretch compared to a conservative balanced fund. Again, just my opinion, but alternative funds offer nothing that a good equity/bond balanced fund can offer, including safe-guarding your down side risk in retirement. Compare your alternatives for risk-return to a couple pretty conservative balanced funds like GLRBX or BERIX. These 2 funds lost only 5.5 and 10.2% in 2008 respectively, while averaging returns over the last 10 years of close to 6 and 7%.
Not trying to change your mind or comfort zone, just saying, in my opinion alternative is more a marketing gimmick than a useful portfolio add at any stage of life. Bear market funds being the worst choice of the group.

Close behind at 46.84% - FSRPX. No 2x strategy, low minimum, reasonable ER, steady long term results...

@hank
According to data from various sources, I'm considered a senior citizen, too. But, I was also offered a membership to AARP when I was age 35. :)
As to the "cash" as a place to run to in the event of an equity melt. Well, if one is able to pull the evacuate equity soon enough, and choose not to go to U.S. bonds or notes, our current default core cash at Fidelity yields, 1.6%.
Not too bad when seeking protection of assets from the "nasties", eh?

Hi Folks - I’m willing to allocate a small amount to alternative funds in the current exuberant market (currently 10%). And an even smaller amount to a gold fund (1-2%), which is another form of alternative investment. But please understand (1) I’m deep into the retirement / draw-down years and (2) I probably have accumulated enough $$ to last my remaining lifetime.
What some don’t grasp is that at a very advanced age it takes just 1 devastating year to wipe out 25-50% of one’s lifetime savings. While (as many like to point out) the odds of such an event are relatively small (you odds-makers can calculate the likelihood), if it happens to someone 75 or older it’s unlikely they’ll recover that sum in their lifetime. So you need to understand that some old farts here are being extra cautious in the prevailing climate. Going to all-cash doesn’t sound like any fun. And I think one can still pull 2, 3 or even 4% a year better than a money market or CD over shorter periods - even conservatively positioned. As I’ve often pointed out, those under 60 (and @Ted still thinks he is) probably should be investing in good plain vanilla low-fee growth funds.
The funds in JohnN’s post appear to be bear market funds. That’s 1 type of alternative - but by no means the entire domain. And a bear-fund to me is suicidal unless you really can foresee the future. Hussman is the best advertisement for an alternative fund which attempted to foresee the future and fell into the bear trap. HSGFX has sported dismal returns since inception. John H’s crystal ball clearly was defective. Maybe Amazon will take it back.

Me bad ! I don't have time for a 1 hour 15 minute presentation.
:( :( :(

@Ted...obviously you didn't watch the video. All of these issues are discussed in detail. The main point is that a reverse mortgage is a financial tool that might help retirees avoid sequence of return risk. This strategy increases final Inheritance (total net worth). One would open the reverse mortgage at 62 (pay the set up fees), have a small principal balance (As little as $50) and let the line of credit grow. It is the line of credit (available in a reverse mortgage) that one would want to tap (and then later pay off the borrowed amount) if markets dropped for a period of time.
Just one tool available to add buffer assets to your portfolio.

Discussion on Reverse mortgages as a way to handle "seqeunce of return risk" in retirement:
Reverse Mortgages

FYI: Even top-level investment managers don’t try to promise 50% returns but these 10 funds have all returned at least that much over the past year, vs. 16.71% for the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index.
Here are 10 funds that have turned $100 into $150 or more in the last 12 months ending Aug. 17, 2018, according to CFRA.
Regards,
Tedhttp://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20180823/FREE/823009999/PH/10-funds-that-returned-50-or-more-this-past-year&Params=Itemnr=2
1. ProFunds Internet UltraSector Profound (INPIX)
2. Rydex Monthly Rebalance NASDAQ-100 2x Strategy (RMQAX)
3. Direxion Monthly NASDAQ-100 Bull 2x Fund (DXQLX)
4. Eventide Healthcare & Life Sciences Fund (ETIHX)
5. Jacob Micro Cap Growth Fund (JMCGX)
6. Direxion Monthly Small Cap Bull 2x Fund (DXRLX)
7. Lord Abbett Developing Growth Fund (LOGWX)
8. Rydex NASDAQ-100 2x Strategy Fund (RYVLX)
9. Rydex Russell 2000 2x Strategy Fund (RYRUX)
10.ProFunds UltraNASDAQ-100 ProFund (UOPIX)

One way to address bear market risk is to first study the history of bear markets:
Here's a graphic:

source Image:
History of U.S. Bear & Bull Markets
Here's the narrative:
historic-bear-markets/
There are two term known as "Max Draw Down" and "Recovery Time" which loosely means the number of months it takes to complete the bear cycle from the start of the bear (when the bear arrives in camp) and until he leaves. For example, if you owned VWINX over the last 33 years (1985-2018) , this fund experienced a Max Draw Down of (-18.82%) starting in Nov of 2007. This fund bottomed in March 2009 and the began its recovery which continued until September 2009. Therefore, its "Recovery Time" took a little less than 2 years (November 2007- September 2009). This information is readily available on Portfolio Visualizer's website. Here's a snapshot of the chart with the Max Draw Down and Recovery Time highlighted.

For a long term investors these draw-downs are opportunities to buy less expensive shares. For retirees who are in the withdrawal phase these draw-downs create "sequence of return" risk especially if a retiree is locking in these losses with withdrawals (selling low).
There are many ways to deal with sequence of return risk. I do not think owning a bear market fund is one of them.
What might be?
1. Withdrawing from a "cash like" funding source - In the scenario above one would need two years of income (2 years of withdrawals) since VWINX needed almost 2 years to recover. A retiree would instead withdraw from the cash-like source until VWINX recovered. Today these cash like accounts can earn almost 2% which helps offset inflation.
2. Use your home's equity - either in the form of a HELOC or a Reverse Mortgage- as a temporary funding source for income. Both would need to be set up in advance. Remember HELOCs were being called in by banks during the very time that VWINX was floundering. A Reverse Mortgage has set up expenses associated with it, but it can not be called in by the bank. The younger you set it up (age 62) the longer the "equity value" grows independent of the "market value".