MFOHome About Commentary Discussions Funds The Best Resources Support Us!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Categories

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Top Large Cap Growth Funds 15 Years

TedTed
in Fund Discussions
FYI: In the past 15 years, a $10,000 investment in large-cap growth funds would have grown to $10,445, according to Morningstar data. That's much lower than the $21,194 for large-cap core funds, which invest in both growth and value stocks.
Large-cap value funds were close behind with $19,605, as was the S&P 500 with $18,742.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBlv081314.gif&docId=712998&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=713001

Comments

  • LLJB
    This may be a bit misleading because this list is only US focused large-cap growth funds and it doesn't include any sector specific funds. So I looked at large-cap growth funds through today without any restrictions and here's what I found. There were 467 distinct funds in existence for the last 15 years and 16 of them were better than Vanguard's Capital Opportunity fund which tops the linked list. Most of them were emerging markets or sector specific, but apparently Fidelity's Canada fund did marginally better as well. The last fund on the linked list was Fidelity Contrafund, which was ranked 13th on the linked list but came in at number 90 on my screen, or top 20%. Apparently 296 of the funds (or 63%) beat the S&P 500. I'd be a little suspicious of the claim that large cap growth funds on average only earned 4.45% over the last 15 years too. Essentially that's no return on an annual basis, but of the 467 funds on the screen I ran only 6 had negative annual returns for the last 15 years. Maybe the statement includes a bunch of funds that existed, lost money and then liquidated so they don't show up in my screen.

    I wouldn't debate whether core funds or value funds did better than growth funds, but the idea that the S&P, core and value funds all grew this much and growth did nothing seems odd.
  • davidrmorandavidrmoran
    Sectors or other countries apart, so confused about what they're saying in general. SP500 grew to 19k since '99. Contrafund, the lowest on their list, to <30k, DODGX (does that qualify? presumably) to >34k. Matthew 25 to 37k. Was there an article to contextualize this misleading graphic? Ted, help us out.
  • jerry
    I don't know that much about the other funds but looking at the last 15 years it is only very recently that Sequoia was a large cap growth fund . For most of the period it was considered large cap value and somewhat recently large cap core
  • JohnChisum
    edited August 2014
    Is this article based on some cherry picking of sorts? I pulled the WSJ snapshot on FLCSX and it has done very well. There are a list of peer funds on the return page that have also done well.

    These type of articles make me scratch my head. No wonder I'm going bald.

    http://online.wsj.com/fund/page/fund_return.html?mod=2_0361&symbol=Flcsx
  • Old_JoeOld_Joe
    "No wonder I'm going bald."

    John!! Say it ain't so!!

    image
  • JohnChisum
    That's what the hat is for.
Sign In or Register to comment.