,If you said
To my way of thinking, the answer is yes - or, more precisely, yes, they can be.
The kinds of funds worth building your portfolio around make it a cinch to spread your bets across buttoned-down big boys such as General Electric (NYSE: GE) and AT&T (NYSE: T) - long-haul market-beaters all - and racier fare such as Comcast (Nasdaq: CMCSA), Taiwan Semiconductor (NYSE: TSM) and EMC (NYSE: EMC). Each member of that particular power trio sports double-digit five-year earnings growth forecasts, as does Gilead Sciences (Nasdaq: GILD), another go-go contender.
If you're looking for a no-brainer solution, funds make that a breeze, too - and you won't have to pay up for the privilege, either. SPDRs (SPY), the S&P 500-tracking ETF, sports an expense ratio of just 0.08%. Vanguard 500 (VFINX), a traditional mutual fund that also tracks the S&P, costs just 0.18%.
Here's the upshot, then: Well-chosen funds make light work of building a carefully calibrated portfolio. They're the most convenient vehicles for investing in asset classes that may lie outside your "circle of competence," too, which is generally a good idea. Doing so can allow you to sleep peacefully at night, secure with the knowledge that folks who do understand, say, emerging markets and high-yield bonds, are busy building your nest egg.
Reality bites
That said, when it comes to investing, mere convenience doesn't cut it as a thesis. And while I'm a fund fan, I'm also a realist - funds are also popular because they're ubiquitous. 401(k) plans, after all, are lousy with them - with an emphasis on the "lousy." And that goes double for the industry's typical entrant, a fund that likely requires shareholders to pay for the privilege of underperformance.
How to separate the keepers from the duds in your plan's - or your brokerage's - lineup? Keep the following points in mind, and you'll go a long way toward doing just that:
manager. Don't focus on past performance unless that track record belongs to the person who's currently calling the fund's shots. Look for low price tags. Unlike any other product, with funds, the price you pay is a feature of the "product" itself. The more you pay, the worse your performance will be; and the less you pay, the more moolah you'll have compounding, as opposed to fattening the fund company's coffers.Last but not least, favor funds with proven strategies and managers who "eat their own cooking" by investing their own moolah alongside that of their shareholders.
The Foolish bottom line
We've been using the above core criteria since Day 1 at the Fool's Champion Funds investing service. So far, so good; roughly 90% of our recommendations have made money for shareholders since we gave 'em the newsletter's nod.
I'm proud of our track record, but the process we use to separate the wheat from the chaff relies on plain old-fashioned common sense. You can put the same wisdom to work in your portfolio, too. If you'd like to see how we do it at Champion Funds, click here for a risk-free guest pass. You'll have access to our recommendations list, model portfolios, and a special report that provides step-by-step assistance for making the most of your 401(k) plan. There's no obligation to
subscribe.
This article was originally published on June 20, 2007. It has been updated.
Shannon Zimmerman is the lead analyst for the Fool's Champion Funds newsletter service. He doesn't own any of the companies mentioned. The Fool has a strict disclosure policy.
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.
