Finding the best mutual funds is an increasingly difficult task in a world with so many to choose from. How can you pick with so many choices available?
Don’t Trust Mutual Fund Labels
There are at least 750 different Large Cap Growth mutual funds and at least 6,066 mutual funds across twelve styles. Do investors need 505+ choices on average per style? How different can the mutual funds be?
Those 750 Large Cap Growth mutual funds are very different. With anywhere from 20 to 693 holdings, many of these Large Cap Growth mutual funds have drastically different portfolios, creating drastically different investment implications.
The same is true for the mutual funds in any other style, as each offers a very different mix of good and bad stocks. Large Cap Value ranks first for stock selection. Small Cap Growth ranks last. Details on the Best & Worst mutual funds in each style are here.
How to Avoid Paralysis by Analysis
We think the large number of Large Cap Growth (or any other) style mutual funds hurts investors more than it helps because too many options can be paralyzing. It is simply not possible for the majority of investors to properly assess the quality of so many mutual funds. Analyzing mutual funds, done with the proper diligence, is far more difficult than analyzing stocks because it means analyzing all the stocks within each mutual fund. As stated above, that can be as many as 693 stocks, and sometimes even more, for one mutual fund.
Anyone focused on fulfilling the fiduciary duty of care recognizes that analyzing the holdings of a mutual fund is critical to finding the best mutual fund. More reliable & proprietary fundamental data, proven in The Journal of Financial Economics, drives our research and analysis of fund holdings. Figure 1 shows our top rated mutual fund for each style.
Figure 1: The Best Mutual Fund in Each Style
* Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Amongst the mutual funds in Figure 1, DWS CROCI Equity Dividend Fund (KDHTX) ranks first overall, Invesco Low Volatility Equity Yield Fund (SLESX) ranks second, and Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap Value Fund (FIDFX) ranks third. Fidelity Advisor Series Small Cap Fund (FSSFX) ranks last.
How to Avoid “The Danger Within”
Why do you need to know the holdings of mutual funds before you buy?
You need to be sure you do not buy a fund that might blow up. Buying a fund without analyzing its holdings is like buying a stock without analyzing its business and finances. No matter how cheap, if it holds bad stocks, the mutual fund’s performance will be bad. Don’t just take my word for it, see what Barron’s says on this matter.
PERFORMANCE OF FUND’S HOLDINGS = PERFORMANCE OF FUND
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.
If Only Investors Could Find Funds Rated by Their Holdings
DWS CROCI Equity Dividend Fund (KDHTX) is not only the top-rated All Cap Value mutual fund, but is also the overall top-ranked style mutual fund out of the 6,066 style mutual funds that we cover.
The worst mutual fund in Figure 1 is Fidelity Advisor Series Small Cap Fund (FSSFX), which still gets an Attractive rating.
This article originally published on April 29, 2021.
Disclosure: David Trainer, Kyle Guske II, and Matt Shuler receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, or theme.
 Harvard Business School features the powerful impact of our research automation technology in the case New Constructs: Disrupting Fundamental Analysis with Robo-Analysts.