Hi Guys,
Be careful here; be very careful indeed.
Trustworthy statistical sets don’t lie when based on honestly representative surveys. Their interpretations are an entirely different matter. In those interpretations, definitions matter greatly. A misinterpretation might not be dishonest; it might simply be a conflated reading of the stats.
Based on my quick reading of the referenced article, and an even quicker reading of your comments, I suspect MFO posters are conflating the S&P data that is the primary source for the article.
The article quotes data from the S&P Persistency scorecard that measures mutual fund performance persistency. That specific data records consistency of returns, not absolute total returns over any integrated multiple periods.
The author focuses attention on the top 25% of funds over the initial baseline year, and than reports only on their persistency in remaining in that top quartile for each of the next four years. They mostly fail to do so.
But that observation says nothing about the cumulative returns of these funds in the entire reporting period. A baseball player who hits in excess of .300 for 4 of any 5 seasons, but has a sub-par .299 in one of those seasons would also fail the S&P Persistency test. I would still trust that .300 hitter in any circumstances and would want him on my team (portfolio).
Properly assembled, statistics don’t lie. However, some writers do purposely lie using statistics to boost a flawed position. Many more writers misuse stats because of statistical innumeracy. And readers add to the chaos by misreading and/or misinterpreting the quoted statistics. User be very careful indeed.
The referenced piece tells more about the fund manager skill/luck debate than about the more important Excess Returns delivery over time.
Best Regards.

Wonderful article! It never bothers to tell us what it means by "the market", however only 2 funds finished in the top quartile of whatever it is for five straight years, less than randomness would produce. This is said to show that you should buy index funds. However, I can guarantee you that no index funds finished in the top quartile of whatever it is for five straight years, either. Index funds aren't designed to do that. They're designed to beat something like 55% or 60% of funds year after year after year with their advantage accumulating as time goes by. So what is it supposed to prove when you show that active funds don't finish in the top quartile all the time?
The above is not to say that I have anything against indexing a stock portfolio. I would say that this is exactly the kind of article that I would expect from the New York Times.

Junkster recently mused in a post about striking a balance between reaping now and sowing for the future as we manage our individual portfolios during our "retirement" years. The article in this link suggests it may be appropriate to plan on living to 100 as we consider this question. It also suggests we manage our individual portfolios like endowments, seeking to balance annual withdrawals and portfolio growth to avoid eroding the principal.
The idea of looking at our individual situations and then deciding on an amount to set aside for the future -- be it the nominal or inflation adjusted principal or some other amount -- makes sense to me. (It is the basic approach I use to manage my portfolio.) The decided upon amount can be set aside for use if a dramatic future increase in medical and related care expenses requires it. And, it can include additional funds to be left to our heirs and/or to do good things in the world after we are gone. The remainder of the ongoing total returns in our individual portfolios can be reaped now.
The success of this approach assumes we will avoid doing too much reaping after one or two good years. So, "Reaping Now" needs to be averaged over some number of years. But, the idea that we each need to have a conversation with ourselves and make peace with much we want to be setting aside "indefinitely" for the future makes sense to me.
http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2015/03/12/the-100-year-old-portfolio-investments-for-a-long-life

Hank....EXAXCTLY...thats what makes these type articles Silly and meaningless (which the NYT is famous for) I could write an article on the next page of the paper on the same day that headlined
"60% of (my) managed funds beat the stock market index the last 5 years"
...so draw your own conclusion....
The conclusion is that the information is meaningless..

Hi Ted. I glanced at that in the NY Times whose headline stories I receive daily on Kindle.
I've never had a lot of confidence in their financial reporting - though same goes for many other publications. What struck me is they seem to be basing these conclusions on the period immediately following the 08-09 market meltdown. I do recall that during the "roaring 90s" index investing became very popular and the S&P 500 was greatly run up. It than suffered and lagged for several years following that hot stretch. So, I'd expect a rebound following the 08-09 market wash-out. This probably helps account for the great run it's had in recent years.
None of this is intended to dispute the advantages of holding index funds for the very long haul. I'd agree on that. But to draw conclusions on just a 6-year stretch strikes me as a lot of journalistic hoopla.

Hog wash...If you define "stock Market" as total market indexes
Using last 5 year figures always on my portfolio (easiest to get) I have 6 managed funds/ETF that beat "the market"... that's 6 out of 11 holdings/others are 8%ers
Of course its a NY Times article...so that explains a lot...

@msf But you did enjoy and were grateful for the extra customer service and advice you received while you were paying the extra 12b-1 fee at Citibank, didn't you? :)
@Crash
1. do you have any clue what the difference between PRSNX and their new Global Unconstrained Bond fund will be? I was thinking of PRSNX as a global bond fund long before it was put into that category, and it has never seemed (to me) that it has had too many constraints on its operation. I'm not clear about just which constraints they will be "unleashing" with their new offering. I guess it's just wait and see?
2. Now, don't go turning on the gas and putting your head in the oven about this, but I just went to TRP to purchase a few more shares of PREMX and PRSNX, and.... the NAV listed for both of them was lower than what I saw posted elsewhere Friday afternoon. Sure enough, I then went to my Fidelity watch list and the NAVs are listed as of 3/12. So, maybe the DBMS people broke early at Morningstar (last week) and at Fidelity (this week) for a FAC "mtg"; or.... there are some problems developing in Bond Land, whereby we just aren't going to get current NAVs in certain circumstances. [I would note last Friday there was some turbulence in MBSs, and this Friday there was some turbulence in EM bonds] Just speculating here.

Looking at the objectives for the two funds at Price's website:
The unconstrained is, well, unconstrained as to average maturity while PRSNX expects to keep a range of "4-15 years" average maturity;
The unconstrained will likely contain less junk bonds, "up to 30%" as opposed to PRSNX having "up to 65%" junk;
And it seems the unconstrained will usually include a bit more foreign, "at least 40%" as opposed to PRSNX with "up to 50%".
In practice, I'm not sure that there will be a big difference between them.

FYI: The bull market in stocks turned six last Monday, and despite some rocky stretches — like last week, when the market fell — it has generally been a very pleasant time for money managers, who have often posted good numbers.
Look more closely at those gaudy returns, however, and you may see something startling. The truth is that very few professional investors have actually managed to outperform the rising market consistently over those years.
In fact, based on the updated findings and definitions of a particular study, it appears that no mutual fund managers have
Regards,
Ted
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/your-money/how-many-mutual-funds-routinely-rout-the-market-zero.html?_r=0

Fidelity had gotten better and will recommend three to five funds with better returns that are available at fido when you search for a fund. They are not ranked, but are sorted by the three year returns. See the similar funds on the right hand side of the page.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/573012507?type=o-NavBar#
Us news will list the top four funds on the category when you search for a fund on their site.
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/marsico-flexible-capital-fund/mfcfx
Fund mojo lists three others in the category to compare a fund to.
http://www.fundmojo.com/mutualfund/fund_report/mutualfund/MFCFX
US news sounds closest to what you are looking for and it's the site that @Ted often references.

Hi @Maurice
Yes, the wonderfully simple and easy to read Bloomberg fund ranking category page. That tool went bye-bye about 4-5 years ago. I used to link that page, and its listings results quite a bit at FundAlarm.
I did query Bloomberg about that tool, noting that is the best available for ease of use.....the quick view. I did not have a reply to my question of why the tool was pulled.
I have not found anything else to replace it; at least to the point of being so easy to use with very readable listings.
Too bad for us.
Regards,
Catch

@DAK: This is the best I could come up with. M* Mutual Fund Finder From Yahoo
Regards,
Ted
1. Click On Category Or
2. Click On Fund Family
3. Funds listed in order of total return 3mo.-YTD-3Yr.-5Yr. As of 12/31/14
4. M* Rating Returns As Of 1/31/15
http://finance.yahoo.com/funds/lists/?mod_id=mediaquotesmutualfunds&scol=nav3m&stype=desc&rcnt=50&tab=tab1&cat=$FOCA$SH$$
U.S. News & World Report also ranks funds by various categories
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds?int=9c0d08

FYI: If I were given $10,000 today, how would I invest it? I would build a coffee can portfolio. As you’ll see, it is an elegant and simple solution to a set of knotty problems.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/03/13/what-to-do-with-10000-try-an-old-fashioned-coffee-can-fund/
Robert Kirby: Coffee Can Portfolio:
https://thetaoofwealth.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the-coffee-can-portfolio.pdf

FYI: U.S. stock markets are in the midst of a "'patient' panic" ahead of Wednesday's Federal Reserve statement, when many investors expect a change in the Fed's language that would send the clearest signal yet that a rate hike is coming soon
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USKBN0M927620150314

I had vpccx in both taxable and IRA accts. by oversight I exchanged the holding in IRA, so cant get in again. So I keep careful eye on the taxable holding. btw, I hold vhcox in taxable and that too is closed for new investors. but keep adding the allowed annual 25k to vpccx

@mcmarasco: How Primecap got their crown !
Regards,
Ted
Primecap: The Best Stock Pickers You've Never Seen:
http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=13028
2014 M* Fund Managers of The Year:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/morningstar-announces-2014-us-fund-manager-of-the-year-award-winners-300023722.html
10 Yr. Average Total Return: A Testament To Active Management
Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX)=7.6%
PRIMECAP Odyssey Aggressive Growth (POAGX)=14.3%
PRIMECAP Odyssey Growth (POGRX)=10.5%
PRIMECAP Odyssey Stock (POSKX)=9.4%
Vanguard Capital Opportunity (VHCOX)=11.1%
Vanguard PRIMECAP Core (VPCCX)=10.4%
Vanguard PRIMECAP (VPMCX)=10.5%

My choice for LCG is Guggenheim Pure Growth ETF RPG with 035% ER.

@mcmarasco
Hi Matt,
I hold CCMAX within the specialty sleeve of my portfolio which is a half sister fund to your subject fund MFCFX. Thus far, I am pleased with CCMAX and plan to retain it.
One of the things that I look at before kicking a fund to the curb is to determine my tax liability. Sometimes it is better to just keep what you might have over moving on.
A fund that you might wish to look at is SPECX (Alger Spectra). It is a LCG fund which I hold in my large/mid cap sleeve. Its ten year average total return is 13.55%.
Old_Skeet

Crash is correct. You have to have a long term vision on these funds. Envision how much India will advance in the next decade or two. Or, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. Some regions will advance over others. Will aggressions slow the advances in Eastern Europe? When will Africa ever advance?
The key is to keep your allocation in proportion to your risk tolerance. 5-10% is an average number.

@Joe
Hi Joe,
I am not by any means saying what I do is the right thing for everybody that reads this to follow. But, it is what I do.
Commodities fall in the broad sectors of materials and energy within the S&P 500 Index. It seems that you wish, like me, to target at least five percent of your asset allocation to the materials area. First, I did an Instant Xray analysis of my portfolio to see just how much I hold in the materials sector. Then if I am short I use a commodity or precious metal fund to supplement. The two funds that I currently use to do this are JCRAX and SGGDX. You might wish to do an Instant Xray on each fund to see how they are comprised. Currently, I hold about six percent in the materials sector with JCRAX and SGGDX combined accounting for about only one percent. So, if I sold them off I’d be back to about the five percent targeted base line in materials. I see gold and silver currently as a good long term buy since they are now selling for around, and back of, their all in cost to mine.
Since, materials are now out of favor with most in the investment community this, by my thinking, is an area of long range opportunity. So with this, I continue to target at least five percent to the materials sector and, at times, even more. Hopefully, over the next year, or so, the worm will turn and assets I bought that were out of favor will have appreciated. Know to, it can go the other way. So, I moderate and don’t try to make it all, so to speak, a one position bet on the “come line.” With this, I am also looking at other sectors for opportunity too.
For me there are four minor sectors within the S&P 500 Index. They are materials, real estate, communication services, and utilities. I strive at keeping at least a five percent allocation to each of these sectors. This leaves the seven others as major sectors in which I strive to keep at least a nine percent allocation to each of these. They are consumer cyclical, financial services, energy, industrials, technology, consumer defensive, and healthcare. When done, this leaves about seventeen percent of the allocation that can be positioned based upon how I am reading the markets and wish to position based upon a sector allocation out look.
Currently, I am one percent (overweight) in materials. I am about nine percent in energy and not carrying an overweight at this time. While in healthcare, technology, consumer cyclical, and financials I am three precent overweight in each. In utilities and communication services I am two percent overweight in each.
I hope this has provided you with some helpful insight as to how I position and to my thinking.
I wish you … “Good Investing.”
Old_Skeet