Oakmark: Growing with the Times

Investors may remember the Oakmark funds from the recent Supreme Court cases over different fees for the same fund for different types of clients.  Others might remember them from William Bernstein's book The Four Pillars of Investing, where he cited Robert Sanborn's initial overperformance as head of the Oakmark Fund to his subsequent underperformance and firing while he stuck with value stocks like Philip Morris and Mattel as the market went gaga over dotcom.  However, I'm not here to bad-mouth the Oakmark funds.  Outside of indexes, I own some small positions in several actively managed funds, including a couple of the Oakmark funds.  Over the long term their funds have performed reasonably well, garnering accolades for many of their managers such as Morningstar Manager of the Year and Decade.  However, a couple of things stand out in their marketing literature.  Fund expenses of over 1% for most funds sets a pretty high bar the managers have to overcome to match market performance.  Investor return after taxes and expenses is not published, which is the vital statistic in my opinion.  Return since inception is meaningful for those who bought at the beginning and held on, but how many people is that?  Almost none, since funds don't get noticed until they put up performance numbers.  Average investor return would be more reflective of investor experience. I'm all for disclosure and transparency.  While this marketing literature is not as bad as many fund families, it could be made better with a few small additions.