There are two ways to exchange risk for return. Let’s use a simple example to illustrate both approaches. The first approach uses borrowed funds. Assume that both the market, as represented by an S&P 500 index fund, and Portfolio A have the same rate of return: 12%. Also, assume that the S&P 500 index fund has a risk level of 0.18 (standard deviation) and Portfolio A has a risk level of 0.12. If your suitable risk level is 0.18, then you can simply buy the S&P 500 index fund and have your return of 12%.

However, you could buy 150% of Portfolio A and also have a risk level of 0.18. In this case, your return would be 12% on the original investment plus 3.5% on the additional 50%, or a return of 15.5%. The additional 3.5% return is calculated by multiplying 50% by 7% (12%—5%), where 5% is the cost of borrowing. The lower risk is directly convertible into a higher rate of return.

Not everyone is comfortable borrowing to invest and, in most cases, individual investors do not want the risk level inherent in an all-stock portfolio. Therefore, we can look at the conversion in an alternate fashion, using an S&P 500 index fund and Portfolio A once again. If you invest two-thirds of your portfolio in an S&P 500 index fund returning 12% with a risk of 0.18, and one-third in short-term Treasuries yielding 3% with a zero risk level, your portfolio will have a risk level of 0.12 (two-thirds of 0.18 + one-third of 0) and a return of 9% (two-thirds of 12% + one-third of 3%). Investing completely in Portfolio A with its lower risk level will earn a 12% return for the same risk level of 0.12. This illustrates that adjusting your asset allocation allows you to convert risk reduction into increased returns.

1. It must be a pure no-load fund. While it may charge a penalty for short-term redemptions, the penalty must be paid to the fund and benefit the shareholders. I feel this type of penalty is desirable particularly for small-cap and mid-cap funds to offset the transaction costs caused by short-term traders.

2. It must have been in existence for at least 10 years. However, it makes sense to consider exceptions to this rule in certain circumstances. The major exception is if the results to date almost guarantee qualification at the 10-year mark.

3. It must have had higher returns than the S&P 500 index on both an absolute and risk-adjusted basis for the most recent five-year and 10-year periods. I am interested in future performance, and the funds with the highest returns in the past are not necessarily those that will perform best in the future. But I feel that better funds always outperform the market (S&P 500 index) in the long and intermediate run, and risk-adjusted return is an essential risk control.

4. It must never have had a three-year period with negative returns. This requirement seeks consistency. In addition, I feel an investment horizon of three years is the minimum for equity investing. This rule emphasizes the importance of never having to sell your portfolio holdings at a loss.

5. Net assets must be less than $8 billion for giant- and large-cap funds, $3 billion for mid- and small-cap funds, and $1 billion for micro- and nano-cap funds. I believe it is too difficult to invest in areas that offer unusual opportunities with a cumbersome amount of assets.

6. It must have an expense ratio no greater than 1.25% if assets are less than $2.5 billion and 1% or less if assets are over $3 billion. Many of the selected funds will be smaller in size, and I can therefore justify the 1.25% level, which is somewhat above the average for stock funds. However, I believe that a higher expense ratio not only will cost in the future (past expenses are reflected in past returns), but says something about management’s attitude. However, there may be justifiable exceptions.

7. It must currently be open to individuals, with a minimum investment of less than $25,000 and available to residents of larger states. However, I will follow openings and closings of otherwise qualified funds.

8. If more funds qualify than are needed, new qualifiers are listed in terms of preference based on a number of quantitative and qualitative factors. These may include: stability of risk, turnover ratio, manager tenure, and shareholder services, in addition to basic criteria.

• Equal dollar amounts are invested in each fund initially.

• If you buy mutual funds through a discount broker, having 10 funds is easy enough. If you want fewer funds, you can apply your own criteria to reduce the group.

• It is not necessary to have a portfolio of 10 funds. All of these funds are so effectively diversified that their average risk is reduced only slightly when combined with others in the portfolio.

• On the other hand, you do not want to winnow your selection down to just one fund. While these funds in the past have had similar diversification benefits, changes specific to each fund may alter its level of diversification—for instance, a fund may get a new manager who changes direction, or there may be a change in philosophy. For that reason, you should hold at least four different funds.

• Well-diversified mutual funds do not have to be changed very often, so the screen will only be performed twice a year.