Okay, so lots of people ask this question, but first ask yourself another question. Will you really hold this fund for 35 years :).
Also, you mention low growth environment for 35 years...we HAVE to be more confident than that. Regardless...
IF answer to my first question is YES, you want a fund that you expect to be around after 35 years, will have decent succession planning. So you need to look at measure players. You need it to be well diversified. I have two recommendations for you. These are fairly new funds, launched after careful consideration I would think. You can expect the fund company having a lot invested in their success and them not being passing fads
Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility - VMVFX
TRP Global Allocation - RPGAX.
I own both of them, and I don't want to live on this planet for 35 years, but I'm unlucky these are what I would likely leave my grandchildren...if they are well behaved.

Always wonder about the Big concern with Loads, Performance of Level Load is based on NET figures, (that is minus the 0.75% load paid every year) for your easy comparison.
10 yr. return of class-C (level load) OSMCX blows its competition away (#1 over ten years by more than 1%/year).
On a serious note, if one would consider owning the Great Owl Fund WAIOX (now closed), that was the second best performing fund in the category over the past decade, then why exclude the better performing and cheaper (including embedded load) Oppenheimer fund OSCMX simply because it has a load?
Though now one can purchase the much cheaper A share class OSMAX load-waived, which offers even better performance (how could it not - same fund at lower cost) at a low (for the category) ER.

FYI: As long as the economy is growing, and inflation isn't a problem, any increase in rates caused by the Fed should be a good sign, not a bad sign, says the Osterweis Capital Management chairman and CIO.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/videoCenter.aspx?id=695719

It sounds like you're trying to get a better understanding of basic investing and follow good guidance. May I suggest a bit more reading (and asking questions here) before making major changes?
While I'm not familiar with Dave Ramsey, three things immediately stood out for me when I looked up his advice:
- His use of growth, aggressive growth, etc. (your question) is at best quaint. Morningstar abandoned these categories decades ago, because it found that what a fund says it is doing (its objective) wasn't reliable; what is more reliable is how the fund is actually investing. So you can't necessarily go by the name or objective of the fund. See, e.g. http://mutualfunds.about.com/od/typesoffunds/a/What-Is-Aggressive-Growth.htm
- He is advocating a pure equity portfolio for retirement plans (no bonds, real estate, etc.). That might be okay for a 25 year old, or for someone with a high risk tolerance, but is generally not considered good advice. You are implying this also in asking about balanced funds; the page I linked to above makes the same point.
- He recommends front end load funds. If you are managing your own portfolio, there is (almost) never a reason to pay a load. That goes into the pocket of your adviser. If you're getting advice for that money, it may be okay, but if you're managing your own investments as you want to do, it makes no sense (or cents).
All that said, here's my suggested mapping from CREF funds to Ramsey's four categories. This is quick and dirty, I suggest you learn more about the funds instead of relying upon a list like this; also, because I'm not researching now, don't count on my accuracy:
CREF Equity Index - Growth and Income (traditionally, equity index funds are considered G&I)
CREF Global - not quite international, because it includes US as well
CREF Growth - growth (not aggressive; CREF is a conservative manager; also this invests "primarily in large, well-known, established companies"; it might be consider G&I, as part of its portfolio is invested in an index)
CREF Social Choice - none (it is basically an allocation fund - a mix of US (and a few foreign) stocks, and bonds)
CREF Stock - growth (it has a lot of foreign, somewhat like FLPSX)
Regarding the TIAA-CREF funds:
Emerging Markets Equity - international
Emerging Markets Equity Index - international
Enhanced International Equity Index - international
Enhanced Large Cap Growth Index - growth
Enhanced Large Cap Value Index - growth
Equity Index - growth and income
Growth & Income - growth and income
International Equity - international
International equity Index - international
International Opportunities - international
Large-Cap Growth - growth
Large Cap Growth Index - growth
Large-Cap Value - growth and income (close call; typically large cap value stocks pay more in dividends, so this inherently focuses on some income as opposed to pure growth)
Large-Cap Value Index - growth and income (as above)
Mid-Cap Growth Fund - growth (TIAA-CREF is not an aggressive fund manager)
Mid-Cap Value Fund - growth (could be growth and income but smaller caps tend to not be considered income-oriented investments)
S&P 500 Index - growth and income
Small Cap Equity - growth (not aggressive - focused on long term growth, managing risk)
Small Cap Blend Equity Index - growth
Anything else is a hybrid, bond, or sector fund.

" In 1945, the largest 25 mutual funds in the United States cost an average of 0.76 percent per year. ... The biggest active funds in 2004 cost 1.56 percent."
I don't know about 2004, but in 2015, the average ER of the 25 largest active funds (using the share class that M* picks with "distinct portfolio") is 0.66%, about 13% lower than it was in 1945.
"No active fund is as cheap as it appears [because of trading costs]." Misleading in a couple of ways, the main one being that index funds also have trading costs (for the most part, it's turnover, not index vs. active, that matters). The minor issue is that there is a fund that never changes its portfolio, and it's not an index fund. Most of the people here don't need to be reminded of it - LEXCX.
If one talks about bond funds, even index funds, they're going to have a lot of trades, because they're constantly replacing bonds that mature (or come too close to maturity to keep in the portfolio). Looking at the pure equity funds in the largest 25 active, one sees turnover ratios ranging from 11-12% (D&C Int'l DODFX and Harbor Int'l HAINX) all the way up to 45% (Fidelity Contra FCNTX); no other fund is above 0.39%. These are all way below the "average" fund's 72% turnover.
Then there is a trading cost particular to index funds - front running (related to reconstitution). No mention of it in this article. And what about index funds that are not market (or at least free float) weighted? They have higher turnover by design. See, e.g.
http://www.investingdaily.com/11263/equal-weighted-index-etfs-pros-and-cons/
None of this is to suggest that index fund "hidden" costs are higher than active fund costs. Just that it would be nice to read articles that didn't start from a conclusion and apply data selectively to reach that conclusion.
For completeness, the bond/hybrid funds in the largest 25 funds are:
ABALX, CAIBX, AMECX, MBLOX, SGENX, FKINX, MWTRX, PTTRX, TPINX, VFSTX, VWELX
The equity funds in the largest 25 funds are:
AMCPX, CWGIX, AEPGX, ANCFX, AGTHX, AIVSX, ANWPX, AWSHX (all American Funds!), and DODFX, DODGX, FCNTX, HAINX, VGHCX, VWNFX

FYI: U.S. stocks are near record highs. But what if there's another market meltdown like the one from October 2007 to March 2009? Such a catastrophe can be tough if you're ready to retire or early in your retirement years. A severe bear market right before or after your paychecks cease can make mincemeat of your carefully constructed retirement planning.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkzMjMxMTE=
NY Times Slant: New Math for Retirees and the 4% Withdrawal Rule
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/your-money/some-new-math-for-the-4-percent-retirement-rule.html?ref=business

There is one fact that I don't think is part of common knowledge, is only occasionally mentioned here and there, but has been acknowledged by the SSA itself (when pressed):
most SS beneficiaries die before receiving, in cumulative monthly payments, the amount of money they have paid into the SS system.
Now, this fact could change for baby boomers, since we fancy that we "reinvent" everything, and perhaps the age-specific mortality rates for our demographic may be different. Too early to tell, I suspect, but we should have a pretty good idea in 5-10 yrs how things are gonna "trend" on that score. We may nudge our Bell Curve up a tiny bit, but as far skewing the Bell into a distorted 90s bulge.... I think not.
These are a couple of things I put into my Monte Carlo and smoke, as I whistle past the graveyard.

>> The problem is systemic. And brainless geeks put it together in such a way as to make everything as difficult as possible, rather than to SERVE the public.
Such bullshit. Such.
Fwiw, I had a few phone interactions in my recent SS filings, and it went unbelievably smoothly and responsively and with callbacks, even. Names and contact info, one person. I admit I was a little surprised. And everything got done correctly. 35yo wedding forms mailed and returned. Dates hit. Confirmations. The whole nine, and ten, yards.
Same with Medicare.
I must add I did have to be patient. More than once. And hold.
That need to be patient however threw me into this total libertarian rage and I vowed then and there never to deal with SS again ever, and refuse to open their mail, and I have been glued to AM talk radio ever since, the one true set of messages. No, wait.

I own two equal weight index funds. One is a large cap fund (IACLX) which invest in equal amounts in the largest 100 stocks found in the S&P 100 Index. The second is a large/mid cap fund (VADAX) that invest in equal amounts in companies found the S&P 500 Index. Both funds rebalance quarterly. In this way stocks that have done well are trimmed and those that have lagged are increased back to their target weightings.
Old_Skeet

Hi Shostakovich, it wasn't quite clear to me whether you were looking for an investment for the next 30-35 years or whether you're just looking for something for some portion of that time while growth is "low".
In the very long-term I think emerging and frontier markets are the place to be. They have favorable demographics, they're growing faster than the rest of the world, they're implementing necessary reforms that will make their markets more and more attractive, and some of them are gaining more and more importance and will most likely end up being dominant economies of the world. I'd rather not focus on the commodity dependent markets so I own funds like WAFMX, MEASX and GPEOX that are more interested in the rising middle class and consumer oriented investments.
In the shorter term I'd focus more on the places where central banks are aggressively easing monetary policy because I think it will lead to multiple expansion even if it doesn't drive fantastic growth. So far my choices for new investments have been HEDJ and DXJ because I believe there's value in hedging the currency exposure, but the un-hedged international funds I own are still outperforming their US counterparts. That doesn't mean to say I've given up on the US, but I've been shifting more assets towards Europe and Japan than I had previously. China is also easing monetary policy pretty aggressively and I like China long-term but I'm not making shorter-term China specific bets because I feel like the volatility is a lot higher than elsewhere.

@bee: Thanks ! Your the buzz !!
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?q=buzz+bee&biw=1280&bih=585&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=G01OVfvnEsLkoATv9oH4Cw&ved=0CEgQsAQ#tbm=isch&q=+bee

Hi all -- soliciting your thoughts on what the best mutual funds might be for a low-growth economy, for an investor about 30-35 years from retirement.
Cheers.
D.S.

I have not done the work (sorry) but think the equal weight outperformance is mostly due to the bias of smaller average caps outperformance . I suggest that a 50% S+P 500 50% extended market index would mostly outperform the equal weight at lower cost. I am also surprised that the equal weight Nasdaq outperformed in 2014 when aapl and msft had good years though the article doesn't exactly say it did (multi year performance could be influenced by bad year for aapl

FYI: “Smart beta” is a term that has increased in popularity over the last year or so. The straightforward idea is that there are numerous problems with the way that traditional stock and bond market indices — and their tracking funds — are constructed.
Regards,
Ted
http://investorplace.com/2015/05/invest-equal-weight-etf/print

FYI: Bond giant Pimco rolled out on Thursday the Pimco Capital Securities and Financials Fund, which will invest in capital securities, including subordinated bonds, preferred shares and contingent capital instruments issued by financial institutions globally.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/investing-pimco-fund-idUSL1N0XY2H920150507
M* Snapshot PFINX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PFINX/quote.html

This thread has been way more than worth my time. I have devoured it and noted a great deal of it, and stored a bunch of it in my email. Substantial, thoughtful, meaty, deep. From different angles. I, for one, thank the group here and now. About my "Mickey Mouse" reference: it's just that there are so many letters, so many options, so many "Parts." If it's made much more complicated, the gov't will run out of letters.
I don't trust the government, but we can't do without some kinda government. And I don't trust for-profit Health Care ANYTHING. The government can be relied upon to screw up the simple task of pouring piss out of a boot, with instructions written on the boot-heel. I still think Single Payer would be simpler and more comprehensive. Have any of you other guys ever attempted to navigate Romneycare in MA? (No need to answer. You get my point.)
More news: another waiver requested.
http://wwlp.com/2015/05/06/baker-asks-feds-to-allow-mass-to-deviate-from-affordable-care-act/

Ralph may be lucky to have you.
In 1983 or so, some Japanese CD company, after Sony and its CDP101, did an early release of a fancy CDP model with this new feature --- random play. (You might see where this is going.) When you pushed that button, the CD was played randomly. Meaning track 1,3,2,1,1,1,4,6,3,3,5,5.
It was only a matter of months before the units were returned enough by consumers to be recalled, and thus was born shuffle play.

>> I dispute the assertion that a retire with a 15-year time horizon would not want to own some equities.
I think he was implying individual stocks and all equities, not bonds only.
I myself dispute it even if that is what he was implying.
15y is long in my book and practice. But I may be more firmly equity-oriented than many retirees.
>> Kitces' reference to "superior risk-adjusted returns" have not been documented.
Good grief, how much documentation do you need?
>> He has not analyzed for us the risks of owning different types of equities,
Everyone else has, in spades.
>> or different types of bonds,
He is talking equities only, as the very next clause made clear.
>> or tried to quantify for us the risks of potential drastic changes in either tax policy or SS structure
How could anyone quantify such risks? Quite apart from the potential drastic changes never happening, he is dealing with things as they are now. Not so delicate and cart.
>. somewhat incidental to the referenced article ... but part of the consideration is whom you would rather have in control of that sum of money, yourself or the government?
You do not have control of that sum of money, and never will. Missing/ignoring the point.
Who ever woulda thought anyone would object to this bland and entirely self-evident pointing out of fact?
>> ultimately, delaying Social Security benefits provides superior risk-adjusted returns to equities and portfolio investing in the long run. ... Obviously, this is not true in the short run – as noted earlier, it takes more than 15 years to break even at all.

The chief counterarguments arise either from the hard reality of needing it earlier without question, or from fantasies involving profound government distrust and crippling future anxiety. That's cool, whatever floats your paranoia, but it's not a prudent way to plan and make thoughtful money decisions.

Sorry wrong fund initially posted.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1032423/000119312515178419/d922872d497.htm
497 1 d922872d497.htm SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 8, 2015 TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2015
DIAMOND HILL FUNDS
Diamond Hill Small Cap Fund
Diamond Hill Small-Mid Cap Fund
Diamond Hill Mid Cap Fund
Diamond Hill Large Cap Fund
Diamond Hill Select Fund
Diamond Hill Long-Short Fund
Diamond Hill Research Opportunities Fund
Diamond Hill Financial Long-Short Fund
Diamond Hill Strategic Income Fund
Supplement Dated May 8, 2015 to Prospectus Dated February 28, 2015
Effective June 12, 2015 at 4:00pm Eastern Time, the Diamond Hill Long-Short Fund (the “Fund”) will close to most new investors.
The Fund will remain open to additional investments under the following circumstances:
• Existing shareholders of the Fund may add to their accounts, including through reinvestment of distributions.
• Qualified defined contribution retirement plans, such as a 401(k), 403(b) or 457 plans, utilizing the Fund as an investment option on June 12, 2015 may continue to establish new participant accounts in the Fund for those Plans.
• Financial Advisors who have clients invested in the Fund as of June 12, 2015 may establish new positions in the Fund for new clients where operationally feasible.
• Investors may purchase the Fund through certain intermediary sponsored fee-based model programs, provided that the sponsor has received permission from Diamond Hill Funds that shares of the Fund may continue to be offered through the program. Approved or recommended lists are not considered model portfolios.
• Trustees, Directors, and employees of Diamond Hill Funds or Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. and their immediate family members may open new accounts and purchase shares of the Fund.
In general, the Fund will look to the financial intermediary to prevent a new account from being opened within an omnibus account at that intermediary. The Fund’s ability to monitor new accounts that are opened through omnibus accounts or other nominee accounts is limited and the ability to limit a new account to those that meet the above criteria with respect to financial intermediaries may vary depending upon the capabilities and cooperation of those intermediaries.
The Fund reserves the right to make additional exceptions or otherwise modify the foregoing closure policy at any time. The Fund also reserves the right to reject any purchase or refuse any exception, including those detailed above for any reason.
This Supplement and the Statutory Prospectus dated February 28, 2015, provide the information a prospective investor ought to know before investing and should be retained for future reference.

57% expect a market correction of between 10 and 20% in the next 12 months!

Will see what Clifford Asness has to say.....