If you like 2.5% ea. yr., buy oaklx, that is for the long term. Majority of years it will be down, ocasionally up, and hopefully you will be in a position to sell in the frequent years that it will be up. It's way too mind boggling for a mutual fund, drives you crazy, and for what? To pad Nyrens salary? Yep, that's what it's for. I don't like Nygren, think that he is incompetent, has no business running this fund. And I don't give a hoot for anyone who disagrees. Don't bother to respond.
OAKBX has performed much better than OAKLX over time, and will most likely continue to do so. The stock market will continue on a bearish path for many years to come (IMO), so conservative funds that focus on defensive picks and high yields should outperform in the coming decade.
What do you mean "over time"? Since its 1996 inception, OAKLX is slightly ahead. In the most recent year, OAKLX has had superior performance. (Except for the disaster of WaMu, I believe OAKLX would have won for every period.)
IMHO, index funds should provide better returns over long periods of time than managed funds because of lower costs and the absence of crystal ball gazing. I have read that 95% of managed funds fail to beat the averages over 20 year periods. Thus something “special” in a managed fund’s composition needs to be present for me to invest. The limited amount of names in OAKLX portfolio is attractive because the good picks will have more weight than in a more densely populated fund. (Of course, a bad pick can have the opposite effect!)
Most of my equities money is in VEU and an S&P 500 fund. A small amount is in a few stocks - and of course, Nygren;’s Nostrum.