To: Dale Baker who wrote (16223 ) 1/21/2003 11:33:40 AM From: Jurgis Bekepuris Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 78704 And your point is? You see, it is easy to pick 5 year winners in rearview mirror. And 10 year winners. And 3 year winners. And even 20 year winners. It's just that there is no guarantee that the results will be repeated going forward. We can go and dissect the reasons why these funds made over 15% in the last five years - and why possibly they won't repeat it again. The easiest one is GOLDX. Yes, if you KNEW that it will make 87% in 2002, you should have bought a *&^*load of shares and retired rich. But let's assume you missed just 2002. Then its record is bad. Furthermore, if you invested in 1997 (ah, SIX years ago!), you would have suffered 50% LOSS in the first year. So its 5 year record is OK, but 6 year record is still lukewarm. I know - GOLDX is a strawman - it's the easiest one to discard, but overall, I would not invest in a fund just because it is at the top of the list for X year return. I didn't invest with Bill Miller either, since I am not sure if his methodology is repeatable if/when he retires. On the other hand, I am mostly comfortable with value shops such as DODGX, CFIMX, TAVFX (I will watch whether Marty Whitman's successor is any good) that have long-long term value investing experience. I do hold Neuberger Genesis in 401(k) for small-cap value exposure (and because I am limited to the funds I can buy there). I may buy growth funds if/when the "growth investing" becomes a dirty word. But even then I won't buy a trader such as SMCFX (600% turnover!). Thanks, but no thanks. Overall, the list like yours is useful for couple things: - Decide if your current holdings are real dogs - BUT be careful, since they may have 87% gain the year after you sell them - Look through the list and see whether there are any funds worth investing in - if they agree with your philosophy, etc. I will print out and keep the list for such review. Good luck Jurgis