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.
With respect to our community's various posting efforts, I'm getting sick of these "Best ETF/Funds"-types of articles. What works for one person or one type of market situationmay not work well for others, but finpr0n articles like this don't make that distinction too often, or clearly.
I agree with you on that type of article. I see the same thing at M*. Their front page articles tout bond funds that are never discussed in the forums.
Since inception 1986 to June 2025 #1 on list Fidelity Select Software & IT Services (FSCSX) has annual return of 16% vs 11.5% for S&P 500. So probably still #1-3. No expensive factory, no inventory spoilage, high profit margin are some of the reasons why this sector has done well.
Seems to trade right along with QQQ, FBCG, etc; maybe with less volatility. Makes me wonder if it's genuinely trading as a truly independent entity or simply as a proxy for tech, etc.?
when this article came out, someone brought it up in a investing facebook group i'm a part of. the person was like why not just invest in a group of these! a few months ago in the same group someone queried if they had. they had and they basically were like I chose 10 of them and only like 3 of them actually did any good. after a 5 year stint they punted recently. considering the alternative offered was to just invest in the market, i quickly uploaded the article to a AI Agent I made and asked how many of these funds have outperformed the market since the date of that article. it said 1 no longer exists and 9 of the 25 have outperformed. obviously that says nothing in regards to their place in their category (which is the more appropriate measurement) and also its been 5 years, but I thought that was interesting.
I've had a subscription to kiplingers for 22 years. My FIL renews it for me. It is super light reading but is a nice quick glance while on the throne. I don't take much of it seriously, in 2004 they released their Kiplinger 25. their top 25 mutual funds. they update it from time to time. only 1 bond fund still is in the list from 2004. none of the other 24 survived. most funds don't even last 5 years on the list. how useful is that list really to a buy and hold investor?
"in 2004 they released their Kiplinger 25. their top 25 mutual funds. they update it from time to time. only 1 bond fund still is in the list from 2004. none of the other 24 survived. most funds don't even last 5 years on the list. how useful is that list really to a buy and hold investor?"
Although I don't track the Kip 25 closely, I've noticed there is a lot of turnover within the ranks. The list's turnover diminishes its utility for long-term investors. I subscribed to Kilpinger's many years ago. The magazine's quality has really deteriorated over the past 10 or 15 years.
Which all means that everything needs to be taken with grain of salt. And even the best funds can fall out of favor. B&H may not always be the best approach when dealing with sector funds, in particular. I have my non-401K portfolio at T Rowe Price and have owned several of the funds on that list: PRMTX. PRHSX & RPMGX.
I sold PRHSX & RPMGX after a couple decades of stellar performance, but would buy both back under the right circumstances. PRMTX, outside of certain individual issues, is one of my best long term holdings of all time. I own it in Roth, TIRA and taxable accounts. It has a 15-yr return of 17%. YTD it is up 10.63%.
I also have a fairly large position in PRSCX, which has a 15-yr return of 17.5% and is up 5% YTD. This is the first mutual fund that I ever bought, back in the mid 1980's.
Kiplinger's Income Investor is a pretty good newsletter dedicated to income. It tends to ignore total return, which I find odd. Many years a number of their picks loose money.
Still for someone who needs income and diversifies adequately it does OK. However it only recently noticed CBLDX and RPHIX and tends to include a number of CEFs
My parents first bought into FCNTX about 35 years ago and have been happy with the returns. They didn’t get exorbitantly wealthy but it has provided a nice cushion for their retirement. The star manager (Will Danoff) seems to be relinquishing some of his responsibilities nowadays, so we’ll see what the future holds. But it’s been a good fund for a long time.
Comments
I've had a subscription to kiplingers for 22 years. My FIL renews it for me. It is super light reading but is a nice quick glance while on the throne. I don't take much of it seriously, in 2004 they released their Kiplinger 25. their top 25 mutual funds. they update it from time to time. only 1 bond fund still is in the list from 2004. none of the other 24 survived. most funds don't even last 5 years on the list. how useful is that list really to a buy and hold investor?
Although I don't track the Kip 25 closely, I've noticed there is a lot of turnover within the ranks.
The list's turnover diminishes its utility for long-term investors.
I subscribed to Kilpinger's many years ago.
The magazine's quality has really deteriorated over the past 10 or 15 years.
I sold PRHSX & RPMGX after a couple decades of stellar performance, but would buy both back under the right circumstances. PRMTX, outside of certain individual issues, is one of my best long term holdings of all time. I own it in Roth, TIRA and taxable accounts. It has a 15-yr return of 17%. YTD it is up 10.63%.
I also have a fairly large position in PRSCX, which has a 15-yr return of 17.5% and is up 5% YTD. This is the first mutual fund that I ever bought, back in the mid 1980's.
Still for someone who needs income and diversifies adequately it does OK. However it only recently noticed CBLDX and RPHIX and tends to include a number of CEFs