The Thrilling 34

In This Article:

Every year I write about the Thrilling 34--although the number varies slightly each time. The idea is to focus on the most important factors and let them do the weeding for me. The goal is a short list of outstanding funds accessible to individual investors. This isn't a list for huge pension funds.

You can be awfully picky when you have 8,000 funds to choose from. The criteria have largely been the same, with some minor tweaks over the years.

Here are the tests I used this time:

  1. Expense ratio in the category's cheapest quintile.

  2. Manager investment of more than $1 million in the fund.

  3. Morningstar Risk rating below the High level.

  4. Morningstar Analyst Rating of Bronze or higher.

  5. Parent rating better than average/neutral.

  6. Returns above the fund's benchmark over the manager's tenure for a minimum of five years. In the case of allocation funds, I also used category averages because benchmarks are often pure equity or bond and therefore not a good test.

  7. Must be a share class accessible to individual investors with a minimum investment no greater than $50,000.

  8. No funds of funds.

The only real change to the above list is that I used prospectus adjusted operating expense ratio. I didn't make the switch just because it's a catchy name. It's the measure we use for our analyst ratings, too. It includes rolled up fund-of-funds fees but does not include transactional costs such as leverage or shorting. This avoids an apples-to-oranges comparison.

A more subtle change is that we have moved to the enhanced analyst ratings methodology, which rates funds on a share class level and has resulted in some rating changes. In particular, the ratings adaptation has led to downgrades in low-return categories such as short-term bond and munis, because our methodology is particularly unforgiving of middling fees in low-return categories. However, because I already set the bar at cheapest quintile, it isn't likely to knock many of this list's candidates out of the box.

You may recall that I detailed past performance of prior lists earlier in the year here. In all six lists over the years, at least two thirds or more of the funds outperformed peers. And in five out of six lists, a majority outperformed their benchmarks. Of course, there are no guarantees that this list will match the prior lists' performance.

In the case of funds where multiple share classes qualified, I chose the one with the lowest minimum. For example, Vanguard's Admiral shares and Investor shares qualified for the nine funds that made the list, but because the investor share class also qualified, I used the investor share class.