Question: Why are there so many mutual funds?

Answer: Mutual fund providers tend to make lots of money on each fund so they create more products to sell.

Get the best fundamental research

The large number of mutual funds has little to do with serving investors’ best interests. Only our research utilizes the superior data and earnings adjustments featured by the Harvard Business School and MIT Sloan paper, "Core Earnings: New Data and Evidence.” We leverage this data to identify three red flags investors can use to avoid the worst mutual funds:

1. Inadequate Liquidity

This issue is the easiest issue to avoid, and our advice is simple. Avoid all mutual funds with less than $100 million in assets. Low levels of liquidity can lead to a discrepancy between the price of the mutual fund and the underlying value of the securities it holds. Plus, low asset levels tend to mean lower volume in the mutual fund and larger bid-ask spreads.

2. High Fees

Mutual funds should be cheap, but not all of them are. The first step here is to know what is cheap and expensive.

To ensure you are paying at or below average fees, invest only in mutual funds with total annual costs below 1.73%, which is the average total annual cost of the 6489 U.S. equity Style mutual funds we cover. The weighted average is lower at 1.21%, which highlights how investors tend to put their money in mutual funds with low fees.

Figure 1 shows American Growth Fund Series Two (AMREX) is the most expensive style mutual fund and iShares S&P 500 Index Fund (BSPGX) is the least expensive. American Growth (AMREX, AMRBX, AMRAX, AMRGX) provides four of the most expensive mutual funds while Vanguard (VFFSX, VSTSX) mutual funds are among the cheapest.

Figure 1: 5 Most and Least Expensive Style Mutual Funds

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings

Investors need not pay high fees for quality holdings.[1] iShares S&P 500 Index Fund (BSPGX) is the best ranked style mutual fund in Figure 1. BSPGX’s Neutral Portfolio Management rating and 0.02% total annual cost earns it a Neutral rating.[2] BNY Mellon Global Equity Income Fund (DEQYX) is the best ranked style mutual fund overall. DEQYX’s Very Attractive Portfolio Management rating and 0.99% total annual cost earns it a Very Attractive rating.

On the other hand, Fidelity Mid Cap Growth Index Fund (FMDGX) holds poor stocks and earns our Unattractive rating, yet has low total annual costs of 0.06%. No matter how cheap a mutual fund, if it holds bad stocks, its performance will be bad. The quality of a mutual fund’s holdings matters more than its price.

3. Poor Holdings

Avoiding poor holdings is by far the hardest part of avoiding bad mutual funds, but it is also the most important because a mutual fund’s performance is determined more by its holdings than its costs. Figure 2 shows the mutual funds within each style with the worst holdings or portfolio management ratings.

Figure 2: Style Mutual Funds with the Worst Holdings

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings

PACE Select Advisors Trust appears more often than any other provider in Figure 2, which means that it offers the most mutual funds with the worst holdings.

Footprints Discover Value Fund (DVALX) is the worst rated mutual fund in Figure 2. Baron Global Advantage Fund (BGAFX), PACE Large Co Growth Equity Investments (PLAAX), Catalyst Enhanced Core Fund (OIPAX), Weitz Funds Hickory Fund (WEHIX), Sparrow Growth Fund (SGFFX), Transamerica Small/Mid Cap Value (IIVAX), Small Cap ProFund (SLPSX), PACE Small/Medium Co Growth Equity Investments (PQUAX), and Fuller & Thaler Behavioral Micro Cap Equity Fund (FTMSX) also earn a Very Unattractive predictive overall rating, which means not only do they hold poor stocks, they charge high total annual costs.

Our overall ratings on mutual funds are on our stock ratings of their holdings and the total annual costs of investing in the fund.

The Danger Within

Buying a mutual fund without analyzing its holdings is like buying a stock without analyzing its business and finances. Put another way, research on mutual fund holdings is necessary due diligence because a mutual fund’s performance is only as good as its holdings’ performance. Don’t just take our word for it, see what Barron’s says on this matter.


Analyzing each holding within funds is no small task. Our Robo-Analyst technology enables us to perform this diligence with scale and provide the research needed to fulfill the fiduciary duty of care. More of the biggest names in the financial industry (see At BlackRock, Machines Are Rising Over Managers to Pick Stocks) are now embracing technology to leverage machines in the investment research process. Technology may be the only solution to the dual mandate for research: cut costs and fulfill the fiduciary duty of care. Investors, clients, advisors and analysts deserve the latest in technology to get the diligence required to make prudent investment decisions.

This article originally published on May 7, 2020.

Disclosure: David Trainer, Kyle Guske II, and Matt Shuler receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, or theme.

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and StockTwits for real-time alerts on all our research.

[1] This paper compares our analytics on a mega cap company to other major providers. The Appendix details exactly how we stack up.

[2] Harvard Business School features the powerful impact of our research automation technology in the case New Constructs: Disrupting Fundamental Analysis with Robo-Analysts.

Click here to download a PDF of this report.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.