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
Where a Global Bond Fund Finds Yield in a Low-Rate World -- Barron's/Lewis Braham
Discusses DODLX - actively manged vs. lower yielding BNDX; offered by low cost, team managed D&C; flexible but with some guardrails; how it uses that flexibility.
I'm able to read w/o tricks or subscription, but Barron's is generally paywalled, so YMMV.
(Sorry I can’t access Lewis’ article at this time.)
DODLX lost 6.21% In 2015 according to Yahoo Finance. That must be the year I bought in, as I remember taking a substantial “drubbing” on my initial investment. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DODLX/performance/
My own quick perspective - For many years now DODLX has elected to maintain heavy exposure to North American issuers - especially the U.S. That NA exposure is typically north of 50%. I like this fund as companion to RPSIX in my “Diversified Income” sleeve. The differences are substantial however (and DODLX is arguably less risky).
Never mentioned on the board, but of great value to me, is that D&C writes very comprehensive narratives as part of their annual and semi-annual fund reports. These provide thoughtful insights into how the fund is positioned, the process of investing as a study, and their current macro-thinking.
@davidrmoran, Thanks, I got in incognito. I’ve considered subscribing to Barron’s, but time-wise and money-wise it would mean cutting out the FT. Tough decisions.
Excellent article by Lewis. Yes, DODLX sports above average returns and a below average ER (.45%). Like all D&C funds, it’s essentially managed by a committee. Article quotes Lucy Johns, one of the fund’s seven managers: “ ‘It’s truly a collaborative culture and not a star system.‘ “ Other points to take away: Like DODIX, this fund adheres to a shorter bond duration (3.3 years) than other funds in its peer group. (D&C has long been cautious about current low interest rates.) Article notes the 20% restriction on junk bonds and the fund’s small selective exposure to EM. By and large, this fund hews toward investment grade paper.
I love D&C, although I have more invested with TRP. The two houses’ approaches are quite dissimilar: TRP is publicly owned. D&C is privately owned. TRP offers well over 100 funds. D&C offers just 6. While Price doesn’t “trumpet” star managers, it doesn’t exactly eschew the practice either (David Giroux being one example). To me, D&C has always represented “stodgy and boring.” I kind of like it that way,
D&C is a good shop but I never used their funds because I found better choices. They also take an extra risk and when markets don't do well they lose more. DODLX vs PFORX (chart) DODBX vs PRWCX (chart) DODGX vs VFINX (chart) DODFX vs HFQTX (chart)
DODFX vs HFQTX depends on whether you're investing in a tax-sheltered account (where you're losing the benefit of the foreign tax credit) or in a taxable account.
In a taxable account, one pays a cost for the Janus fund's frenetic trading (142% turnover ratio).
Comparing the tax adjusted returns for HFQIX (a lower cost, longer lifetime share class) with DODFX:
DODFX HFQIX 1 yr 21.06% 18.12% 3 yr 6.76% 4.11% 5 yr 2.88% 2.63% 10 yr 4.95% 4.46%
Nice writeup from Lewis. In 2008 all my Dodge & Cox funds did not fare well - DODFX (-46.7%) and DODGX (-43.3%). With patience they all recovered in next few years and gained more ever since. DODIX was added recently, thus it may have more overlap with DODLX.
@Sven echos my thoughts. I was with D&C when the roof fell in (‘07-‘09). Remember it well. But I wonder if worrying about a repeat is tantamount to “fighting the last war”. I don’t see much in their style that says their funds must always lead on the downside. In fact, their domestic equity funds are hedged against interest rate shock by being overweight financials. A lot depends on which way the wind blows.
Oh - You can fault D&C plenty if you wish. Not as cheap as index funds. Most of their funds are bloated, making it harder for them to make tactical moves. Fewer alternatives exist under their roof (just six funds / no money market fund) than for most of the big players. And DODBX typically holds less in fixed income (around 30% currently) than similar funds. I’d prefer they received no publicity at all - because part of the ‘08-‘09 problem seems to have been that many short term investors who had been attracted by their outperformance fled in the face of falling prices, exasperating the problems.
Being of the “stable genius“ variety, I prefer to invest directly with just a limited number of fund houses. Avoids the temptation to constantly seek out a “better” fund for any particular category - in effect jumping ship to ship. And that “stay put” style is anathema to many today. For equities and bonds my choices boil down to TRP and D&C. I suppose one might do better in selecting two houses to entrust with the bulk of their long-term retirement money. But one could also do a lot worse.
DODFX vs HFQTX depends on whether you're investing in a tax-sheltered account (where you're losing the benefit of the foreign tax credit) or in a taxable account.
In a taxable account, one pays a cost for the Janus fund's frenetic trading (142% turnover ratio).
Comparing the tax adjusted returns for HFQIX (a lower cost, longer lifetime share class) with DODFX:
DODFX HFQIX 1 yr 21.06% 18.12% 3 yr 6.76% 4.11% 5 yr 2.88% 2.63% 10 yr 4.95% 4.46%
First, I don't have to invest in a taxable account. Most investors have much more money in their IRA.
Second and important, M* numbers are way off. It depends on one's tax brackets and most household filing jointly have a max rate of 22% ($168.4K)
Third, A 5 years analysis(link) shows that DODFX has over 40% more volatility while performance is equal to 3.7% while HFQIX peformance is equal to 5.1% with much lower volatility. Another great way is to look at Sharpe+Sortino and HFQIX numbers are much better.
First, unless all your assets are tax-sheltered, you do have assets in taxable accounts. The question is not whether you invest taxable assets, but where. Unless of course you're keeping them all in cash, which some people would still regard as a form of investment.
Certainly you don't have to invest any of your taxable assets in equities. You could always put all your taxable moneys into bonds and keep your equity investments tax sheltered. If that's what you're doing, more power to you. Several years ago T. Rowe Price had a study that showed, under certain (now obsolete) tax rate and return rate assumptions, that was actually a better strategy.
So you're right, you don't have to invest any taxable money in equities. But if you do because of tax benefits, those benefits are even greater with foreign investments.
Second, you stated that "I never used [D&C] funds because I found better choices." You positioned that as a personal decision. So it's not so much a matter of what "most households filing jointly" pay in taxes as what you pay.
Speaking generally, even if other funds are better for you, it doesn't mean that they're better for others. I suspect that people here tend to have above average size portfolios. So it isn't obvious that you're even addressing most of the readers. I don't know one way or the other.
Not that I always discount volatility (which is not the same as risk, despite the oh-so-mathematical formulae suggesting otherwise). Rather, I personally care about it primarily where cash flow is important. Thus I pay attention when David Snowball points out that RPHIX has the highest Sharpe ratio of any fund. But I certainly wouldn't use that fund for a long term investment merely because of its wonderful Sharpe ratio.
For a long term equity investment, I care about long term returns. As Jeffrey Ptak documented in the cited M* column, most people don't invest that way. "It appears that higher risk-adjusted performers are easier for investors to use", despite their potentially lower returns.
>> Not that I always discount volatility (which is not the same as risk, despite the oh-so-mathematical formulae suggesting otherwise). Rather, I personally care about it primarily where cash flow is important.
This can hardly be stressed enough, in my experience.
Since the disastrous ‘08 performance of D&C was brought up earlier, I thought an article addressing those issues (written in 2009) might be of interest to some readers. D&C felt blindsided by the massive and unexpected government intervention in the bank crisis, which they felt put them at disadvantage. But it’s also clear they made several missteps of their own.
My hazy memory says they made some type of overture (lawsuit / petition?) to the U.S. government seeking to reclaim some of the alleged damage (and were eventually rebuffed). However, my web-search has failed to turn up anything.
@hank: { In fact, their domestic equity funds are hedged against interest rate shock by being overweight financials. A lot depends on which way the wind blows.} Hank if memory serves me right they were way over weighted financials back in the big blow up ! Derf
@hank: { In fact, their domestic equity funds are hedged against interest rate shock by being overweight financials. A lot depends on which way the wind blows.} Hank if memory serves me right they were way over weighted financials back in the big blow up !
Go ahead Derf. Ruin my day.
Rates are substantially lower now than at the start of the ‘07-‘09 crisis. Yes - rates fell dramatically during the crisis, helping (AAA rated) bonds and dinging financials. Not all “blowups” follow the same path however. I’d say rates might well spike despite an equity selloff at some future point. That’s apparently what D&C is counting on.
We’ve come since the ‘07-‘09 crisis to expect magic from the central banks. Reading between the lines, the “repo farce” (which David Snowball has highlighted recently) tells me the central banks are finding it harder and harder to hold rates down. At some point people refuse to invest at rates in the 0-3% range. Especially if inflation takes off. Don’t forget there are other asset classes they can park their money in besides stocks and bonds.
No question Dodge & Cox suffered badly in 2008 mainly because their value strategy can emphasize cheap but sometimes more financially risky companies. Then again, most value managers suffered in 2008 unless they had a serious quality tilt too. I think the important thing with a fund shop like them is to understand their strategies, how and when they work. For the most part, I think D&C is a good shop--low fees, experienced management, consistent strategies and not product crazy. Yet their strategies do entail some risk. I find it easier though to forgive them as value managers versus say Oakmark Select--OAKLX-- which held double digits in Washington Mutual in '08--or Sequoia Fund and its huge Valeant Pharmaceuticals position. How could Bill Nygren invest that kind of dough in Wamu right up into the credit crisis and not see the writing on the wall--the deep problems in the company's balance sheet? I could never wrap my head around that. Dodge & Cox made some missteps in banks too, but they never held such concentrated positions in any one company.
@hank: {At some point people refuse to invest at rates in the 0-3% range.} I wonder what they would do if the rate goes negative ??!! Last week WSJ had an article about "repo $,s" going up. Are central banks going to far?
SD=volatility is just the first thing I look for. I pay a lot of attention to Sharpe, Sortino, Max Draw and more. Let's look again at D&B compared to "my" funds. I already proved that A 5 years analysis(link) shows that DODFX has over 40% more volatility while performance is equal to 3.7% while HFQIX peformance is equal to 5.1% with much lower volatility. Another great way is to look at Sharpe+Sortino and HFQIX numbers are much better.
For 15 years DODFX vs VFINX (link) shows that VFINX has better performance, SD, Sharpe, Sortino. If you changed it to 10 years (link) The results are similar, VFINX has better SD, Sortino and Sharpe in the last 10 years. This is after 2008-09 debacle.
DODBX vs PRWCX (link) same as above. PRWCX is a much better fund. If you change it to 10 years starting 12/2009 PRWCX still have better performance, SD, Sharpe, Sortino. This is after 2008-09 debacle.
Most investors have a choice of what to use in a taxable account. I would use US stocks indexes and munis because of their lower taxes. I use only Hy Muni funds in my taxable account.
I don't use many funds. I typically use up to 7 but mostly 5 funds. Research shows that the more funds you have the more you regress to the mean and you will make more trades and more trades lead to lower returns.
Cash flow? I generate cash flow primary from bond funds, after all, funds like PIMIX, IOFIX, PUCZX, VCFIX are paying over 4.5% which should be enough for most retirees. If you want more I would use PCI (CEF) with distr > 8% and much better risk/reward than the SP500. HY Munis funds ORNAX,NHMAX pay over 4% with Fed tax-free. I also can and do sell shares if I need to but I do it on my term when I need and based on market conditions.
As I said earlier, D&C is a good shop but I was always able to find better risk/reward funds than D&C.
There is only one metric that is contractual, predictable and repeatable again and again and that's fees. And this is why we have SPIVA scorecards for active funds versus passive indexes like this for the past 15 years of returns from 7/1/2004 - 6/30/2019: I'm not saying active funds don't matter and no managers have skill. They do or I wouldn't be here. But low fees like D&C's funds have should never be discounted and are a contractual predictable edge they have over other competing active funds. Regarding comparing DODFX, an international stock fund, with VFINX, a U.S. stock fund, I'm not sure why one would do that--apples and oranges. Comparing DODFX with HFQIX, a global fund holding U.S. stocks, doesn't quite work either, although that's better than VFINX.
"As I said earlier, D&C is a good shop but I was always able to find better risk/reward funds than D&C."
That is figuratively and literally your bottom line. Though what you're looking at is volatility, not risk. SD is a measure of volatility. Sharpe ratio is a ratio of return to volatility (SD). Sortino ratio "measures the return to 'bad' volatility." Then there's the Treynor ratio, " known as the 'reward-to-volatility ratio'".
Sure, look at all of these measures, and more. Just realize that they're all variations on the same theme - equating volatility with risk. When cash flow is a concern, volatility does create risk. But you dismissed that.
DODFX vs VFINX? Yes, foreign investments have done worse than domestic for the past ten years. I'll guess that was a typo and that you meant to write DODGX.
Recognizing that DODGX is a value fund, value has likewise underperformed for the past ten years (link). The comparison says more about the relative performances of the market segments than the funds. Still, since you did mention mean regression, it might be helpful to look at a quote from an article praised in another thread:
Value stocks may finally do better than growth stocks thanks to the steeper yield curve. The thesis of owning growth stocks during a flattening yield curve and value stocks during steepening could prove true here.
Comparing VFINX to DODFX was an error, it should be VFINX vs DODGX. The link and numbers are based on DODGX. SP500 beat DODGX. I also agree that low fees are important and if I have to select funds for the next 20 years I would only select index funds. FXAIX ER(expense ratio)=0.015 and Fidelity also introduced zero ER. This means DODGX ER is still 0.5% higher. The only exception is VWIAX which is a great fund for retirees with ER=0.16%. ================== DODGX doesn't only own "value" companies. They own growth companies too. If you can't beat the index claim your style is a bit different. I always believed in investing in the index for US LC(The Bogle way). If I want to beat it I would use QQQ, after all, for several decades now high tech is where you find a lot of growth and where the biggest ones take so much more. I also prefer QQQ (for my explore part) because over 50% of the revenues come from abroad. ================== Risk isn't volatility. That subject had been discussed for decades but Risk doesn't have an accurate definition. Volatility, Sharpe, Sortino, Martin, Ulcer, Up/Down ratio and others can help you find better funds. Sure, they are not perfect or a guarantee but you got to start somewhere. I have been using them now for about 20 years. I have used SGENX, FAIRX, OAKBX most years in 2000-2010. As I got older and prepare for my retirement I have used PIMIX and PRWCX several years since 2010. I also found that low SD + higher performance is a quick search with a high correlation for finding great funds and great funds also have better Martin, Sharpe, Sortino. They all work together most times. MFO also uses the above for finding better funds. ================== As a retiree bond funds are more important to me. Stocks are "easy" just use an index. Bonds is where great managers can make more money with better risk attributes. You will never find bond funds like PIMIX,PIGIX and IOFIX at D&C and you definitely will not find much higher distributions which are very important to most retirees. It also works better for covering expenses and rebalancing. When stocks go up a retiree should use stocks for expenses when stocks go down use bonds for expenses and rebalancing should be a part of it. My style was always to invest in my best ideas in order to try and get better results if you own 3 funds in every category chances are you won't.
Comments
DODLX lost 6.21% In 2015 according to Yahoo Finance. That must be the year I bought in, as I remember taking a substantial “drubbing” on my initial investment. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DODLX/performance/
My own quick perspective - For many years now DODLX has elected to maintain heavy exposure to North American issuers - especially the U.S. That NA exposure is typically north of 50%. I like this fund as companion to RPSIX in my “Diversified Income” sleeve. The differences are substantial however (and DODLX is arguably less risky).
Never mentioned on the board, but of great value to me, is that D&C writes very comprehensive narratives as part of their annual and semi-annual fund reports. These provide thoughtful insights into how the fund is positioned, the process of investing as a study, and their current macro-thinking.
Excellent article by Lewis. Yes, DODLX sports above average returns and a below average ER (.45%). Like all D&C funds, it’s essentially managed by a committee. Article quotes Lucy Johns, one of the fund’s seven managers: “ ‘It’s truly a collaborative culture and not a star system.‘ “ Other points to take away: Like DODIX, this fund adheres to a shorter bond duration (3.3 years) than other funds in its peer group. (D&C has long been cautious about current low interest rates.) Article notes the 20% restriction on junk bonds and the fund’s small selective exposure to EM. By and large, this fund hews toward investment grade paper.
I love D&C, although I have more invested with TRP. The two houses’ approaches are quite dissimilar: TRP is publicly owned. D&C is privately owned. TRP offers well over 100 funds. D&C offers just 6. While Price doesn’t “trumpet” star managers, it doesn’t exactly eschew the practice either (David Giroux being one example). To me, D&C has always represented “stodgy and boring.” I kind of like it that way,
DODLX vs PFORX (chart)
DODBX vs PRWCX (chart)
DODGX vs VFINX (chart)
DODFX vs HFQTX (chart)
In a taxable account, one pays a cost for the Janus fund's frenetic trading (142% turnover ratio).
Comparing the tax adjusted returns for HFQIX (a lower cost, longer lifetime share class) with DODFX: All figures as of 12/31/19
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=DODFX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=HFQIX
Oh - You can fault D&C plenty if you wish. Not as cheap as index funds. Most of their funds are bloated, making it harder for them to make tactical moves. Fewer alternatives exist under their roof (just six funds / no money market fund) than for most of the big players. And DODBX typically holds less in fixed income (around 30% currently) than similar funds. I’d prefer they received no publicity at all - because part of the ‘08-‘09 problem seems to have been that many short term investors who had been attracted by their outperformance fled in the face of falling prices, exasperating the problems.
Being of the “stable genius“ variety
Second and important, M* numbers are way off. It depends on one's tax brackets and most household filing jointly have a max rate of 22% ($168.4K)
Third, A 5 years analysis(link) shows that DODFX has over 40% more volatility while performance is equal to 3.7% while HFQIX peformance is equal to 5.1% with much lower volatility. Another great way is to look at Sharpe+Sortino and HFQIX numbers are much better.
Certainly you don't have to invest any of your taxable assets in equities. You could always put all your taxable moneys into bonds and keep your equity investments tax sheltered. If that's what you're doing, more power to you. Several years ago T. Rowe Price had a study that showed, under certain (now obsolete) tax rate and return rate assumptions, that was actually a better strategy.
So you're right, you don't have to invest any taxable money in equities. But if you do because of tax benefits, those benefits are even greater with foreign investments.
Second, you stated that "I never used [D&C] funds because I found better choices." You positioned that as a personal decision. So it's not so much a matter of what "most households filing jointly" pay in taxes as what you pay.
Speaking generally, even if other funds are better for you, it doesn't mean that they're better for others. I suspect that people here tend to have above average size portfolios. So it isn't obvious that you're even addressing most of the readers. I don't know one way or the other.
Third, "The saying is true: You really can't eat risk-adjusted returns."
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/873910/you-cant-eat-risk-adjusted-returns-but-they-still-might-nourish
Not that I always discount volatility (which is not the same as risk, despite the oh-so-mathematical formulae suggesting otherwise). Rather, I personally care about it primarily where cash flow is important. Thus I pay attention when David Snowball points out that RPHIX has the highest Sharpe ratio of any fund. But I certainly wouldn't use that fund for a long term investment merely because of its wonderful Sharpe ratio.
For a long term equity investment, I care about long term returns. As Jeffrey Ptak documented in the cited M* column, most people don't invest that way. "It appears that higher risk-adjusted performers are easier for investors to use", despite their potentially lower returns.
This can hardly be stressed enough, in my experience.
My hazy memory says they made some type of overture (lawsuit / petition?) to the U.S. government seeking to reclaim some of the alleged damage (and were eventually rebuffed). However, my web-search has failed to turn up anything.
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T033-C000-S002-what-went-wrong-at-dodge-cox.html
Hank if memory serves me right they were way over weighted financials back in the big blow up !
Derf
Rates are substantially lower now than at the start of the ‘07-‘09 crisis. Yes - rates fell dramatically during the crisis, helping (AAA rated) bonds and dinging financials. Not all “blowups” follow the same path however. I’d say rates might well spike despite an equity selloff at some future point. That’s apparently what D&C is counting on.
We’ve come since the ‘07-‘09 crisis to expect magic from the central banks. Reading between the lines, the “repo farce” (which David Snowball has highlighted recently) tells me the central banks are finding it harder and harder to hold rates down. At some point people refuse to invest at rates in the 0-3% range. Especially if inflation takes off. Don’t forget there are other asset classes they can park their money in besides stocks and bonds.
Last week WSJ had an article about "repo $,s" going up. Are central banks going to far?
Sorry about your day, LOL, Derf
SD=volatility is just the first thing I look for. I pay a lot of attention to Sharpe, Sortino, Max Draw and more.
Let's look again at D&B compared to "my" funds.
I already proved that A 5 years analysis(link) shows that DODFX has over 40% more volatility while performance is equal to 3.7% while HFQIX peformance is equal to 5.1% with much lower volatility. Another great way is to look at Sharpe+Sortino and HFQIX numbers are much better.
For 15 years DODFX vs VFINX (link) shows that VFINX has better performance, SD, Sharpe, Sortino.
If you changed it to 10 years (link) The results are similar, VFINX has better SD, Sortino and Sharpe in the last 10 years. This is after 2008-09 debacle.
DODBX vs PRWCX (link) same as above. PRWCX is a much better fund.
If you change it to 10 years starting 12/2009 PRWCX still have better performance, SD, Sharpe, Sortino. This is after 2008-09 debacle.
Most investors have a choice of what to use in a taxable account. I would use US stocks indexes and munis because of their lower taxes. I use only Hy Muni funds in my taxable account.
I don't use many funds. I typically use up to 7 but mostly 5 funds. Research shows that the more funds you have the more you regress to the mean and you will make more trades and more trades lead to lower returns.
Cash flow? I generate cash flow primary from bond funds, after all, funds like PIMIX, IOFIX, PUCZX, VCFIX are paying over 4.5% which should be enough for most retirees. If you want more I would use PCI (CEF) with distr > 8% and much better risk/reward than the SP500. HY Munis funds ORNAX,NHMAX pay over 4% with Fed tax-free. I also can and do sell shares if I need to but I do it on my term when I need and based on market conditions.
As I said earlier, D&C is a good shop but I was always able to find better risk/reward funds than D&C.
I'm not saying active funds don't matter and no managers have skill. They do or I wouldn't be here. But low fees like D&C's funds have should never be discounted and are a contractual predictable edge they have over other competing active funds. Regarding comparing DODFX, an international stock fund, with VFINX, a U.S. stock fund, I'm not sure why one would do that--apples and oranges. Comparing DODFX with HFQIX, a global fund holding U.S. stocks, doesn't quite work either, although that's better than VFINX.
That is figuratively and literally your bottom line. Though what you're looking at is volatility, not risk. SD is a measure of volatility. Sharpe ratio is a ratio of return to volatility (SD). Sortino ratio "measures the return to 'bad' volatility." Then there's the Treynor ratio, " known as the 'reward-to-volatility ratio'".
Sortino: https://www.morningstar.com/InvGlossary/sortino_ratio_definition_what_is.aspx
Treynor: https://www.morningstar.com/articles/384148/article
Sure, look at all of these measures, and more. Just realize that they're all variations on the same theme - equating volatility with risk. When cash flow is a concern, volatility does create risk. But you dismissed that.
DODFX vs VFINX? Yes, foreign investments have done worse than domestic for the past ten years. I'll guess that was a typo and that you meant to write DODGX.
Recognizing that DODGX is a value fund, value has likewise underperformed for the past ten years (link). The comparison says more about the relative performances of the market segments than the funds. Still, since you did mention mean regression, it might be helpful to look at a quote from an article praised in another thread:
I also agree that low fees are important and if I have to select funds for the next 20 years I would only select index funds. FXAIX ER(expense ratio)=0.015 and Fidelity also introduced zero ER. This means DODGX ER is still 0.5% higher.
The only exception is VWIAX which is a great fund for retirees with ER=0.16%.
==================
DODGX doesn't only own "value" companies. They own growth companies too. If you can't beat the index claim your style is a bit different.
I always believed in investing in the index for US LC(The Bogle way). If I want to beat it I would use QQQ, after all, for several decades now high tech is where you find a lot of growth and where the biggest ones take so much more. I also prefer QQQ (for my explore part) because over 50% of the revenues come from abroad.
==================
Risk isn't volatility. That subject had been discussed for decades but Risk doesn't have an accurate definition. Volatility, Sharpe, Sortino, Martin, Ulcer, Up/Down ratio and others can help you find better funds. Sure, they are not perfect or a guarantee but you got to start somewhere. I have been using them now for about 20 years. I have used SGENX, FAIRX, OAKBX most years in 2000-2010. As I got older and prepare for my retirement I have used PIMIX and PRWCX several years since 2010.
I also found that low SD + higher performance is a quick search with a high correlation for finding great funds and great funds also have better Martin, Sharpe, Sortino. They all work together most times.
MFO also uses the above for finding better funds.
==================
As a retiree bond funds are more important to me. Stocks are "easy" just use an index. Bonds is where great managers can make more money with better risk attributes. You will never find bond funds like PIMIX,PIGIX and IOFIX at D&C and you definitely will not find much higher distributions which are very important to most retirees.
It also works better for covering expenses and rebalancing.
When stocks go up a retiree should use stocks for expenses when stocks go down use bonds for expenses and rebalancing should be a part of it.
My style was always to invest in my best ideas in order to try and get better results if you own 3 funds in every category chances are you won't.