5 Year Total (cum.) Return for 30 Biggest Funds

[Telly]

This was in Sunday's paper, thought it would be of interest.

30 biggest mutual funds, in descending order of assets.

My notes:
- I pulled out the two Vanguard 500 indexes, and put them up top as references.
- All returns are positive.
- A/F is American Funds.
- If there are different fund classes, these are "A" shares.
- I labeled any Moderate Allocation funds (contain Stocks & Bonds) that I recognized.
- Remember that these are % cumulative returns for the last 5 years.

5 years misses about the first 19 months of the 2000 - 2002 bear market, but gets all to date of the following bull.

Vanguard 500 36.2 Investor
Vanguard 500 36.8 Admiral

A/F Growth Fund 53.8
A/F InvCo of Am 49.1
A/F WashMutual 46.0
Fid Invest Contra 74.2
Dodge&Cox Stock 91.1

Pimco Instl PIMS 27.7

A/F CapIncBlder 79.1 Moderate Allocation
A/F IncomeFund 65.2 Moderate Allocation
A/F CapWorldGr 113.2
A/F EuroPacificGr 100.8

Fid Invest Magellan 19.6
Fid Invest DiverIntl 117.8
Vanguard Inst Instldx 37.1
A/F NewPerspective 75.1
Fid Invest LowPr 113.5
Vanguard TotStock 46.7

A/F Balanced 46.1 Moderate Allocation
Vanguard WindsorII 61.3
A/F FundInvestors 68.3
Fid Invest GroInc 21.3
Vanguard Wellington 54.5 Moderate Allocation

Fid Invest GroCo 35.9
Fid Invest EqutInc 54.5
Frank/Temp IncoSer 74.5
Dodge&Cox Balanced 69.9 Moderate Allocation
Dodge&Cox IntlStock 164.1

Frank/Temp Growth 87.0
Fid Invest Puritan 47.2

 

[lazyday]

Could be interesting to compare to list of those that were the 30 largest at the start of the five year period.

 

[justin]

For reference, the Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund had 107% cumulative returns for the 5 yr period ending 10/31/06.

 

[mickeyd]

5 years misses about the first 19 months of the 2000 - 2002 bear market, but gets all to date of the following bull.

This is why the 5yr numbers are unreliable when it comes to measuring long-term returns. 10 year, or better yet 15 year returns, are a lot better for my use.

 

[eridanus]

This is why the 5yr numbers are unreliable when it comes to measuring long-term returns.

Yeah, but it looks good in magazine ads.

 

[d]

interesting ... but what about the next 5 yrs!

 

[FinanceDude]

Too many load funds on there....must be a misprint...........

 

[Telly]

Too many load funds on there....must be a misprint...........

Yeah, must be, that can't possibly happen, can it? hahaha

 

[Telly]

5 years misses about the first 19 months of the 2000 - 2002 bear market, but gets all to date of the following bull.

This is why the 5yr numbers are unreliable when it comes to measuring long-term returns. 10 year, or better yet 15 year returns, are a lot better for my use.

I just thought it meant that I should have looked in the paper ~19 months sooner, so I could have gotten all of the bear market into the 5 year window. In this cumulative return view, that would have shown how bad each fund cratered, and how long it took to climb back up to the surface. I think we would see some real differences there. Can still see some of the climb-out effect. For someone who has 20 years till they ER, it may not matter much. For those that are in distribution phase when a bear market comes along, it can matter a lot.

A couple years ago, the 5 year annualized average returns stats looked pretty bad on some funds. Funds that were dividend-oriented did better.

Looking out to 10 and 15 year annualized average returns can smooth over the bad show areas. Of course, if one decided that long-term performance is really what matters, then the choice of only 10 or 15 years is arbitrary. 50 years should be even better. 70 years, even better! That's it, let's look at returns for only funds in existance 70 or more years! There is at least one fund on that list that has that kind of record.

 

[Telly]

Could be interesting to compare to list of those that were the 30 largest at the start of the five year period.

My guess would be that most of the same funds would be there, though the order would have changes. Like Magellan would be higher up the list! Poor Magellan... I wonder if the remaining Magellan-holders are primarily deceased people.

 

[FinanceDude]

Looking out to 10 and 15 year annualized average returns can smooth over the bad show areas. Of course, if one decided that long-term performance is really what matters, then the choice of only 10 or 15 years is arbitrary. 50 years should be even better. 70 years, even better! That's it, let's look at returns for only funds in existance 70 or more years! There is at least one fund on that list that has that kind of record.

Investment Company of America has been around since 1934..........