What do you really know about your mutual fund? In this episode of Industry Focus: Financials, join The Motley Fool's Gaby Lapera and Jordan Wathen as they discuss everything you need to know to become a fund nerd.

From how much your fund generates in dividends, to how to find out how your fund votes on the corporate matters of companies in its portfolio, this show truly covers it all. Learn how to do more digging into your fund's SEC filings, and see why Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A -0.39%) (BRK.B -0.56%) fame believes that index funds may do more harm than good.

Did you know that the three largest index funds own more than 13% of Apple (AAPL -1.32%)? How has BlackRock (BLK) used its power as a fund manager? Why is Vanguard so different from other fund managers? Tune in to learn more about the funds you probably own in your retirement account.

A full transcript follows the video.

This podcast was recorded on June 13, 2016. 

Gaby Lapera: Hello everyone! Welcome to Industry Focus, the podcast that dives into a different sector of the stock market every day. You are listening to the financials edition, filmed today, on June 13, 2016. We are going to be talking about doing your due diligence on mutual funds. My name is Gaby Lapera. Joining me on Skype is Jordan Wathen, an analyst in our financials bureau. Thanks for calling in. How's it going?

Jordan Wathen: It's going all right. How are you today?

Lapera: I am doing fantastic and in order not to bore our listeners with small talk about the weather, I suggest we dive right into mutual funds.

Wathen: Sounds good. I like that idea.

Lapera: Do you want to give a brief description of what a mutual fund is?

Wathen: Just in short and very simply, a mutual fund is basically a collection of investments -- stocks or bonds -- that are owned by a number of owners. You buy a share of a mutual fund which basically entitles you to ownership of a portion of its portfolio of stocks and bonds. It's a way to buy a diversified portfolio of investments really easily.

Lapera: That makes sense to me. There's a lot of different types of mutual funds out there. A lot of people who have, for example, access to 401(k)s, or even just people who are interested in investing their money is a very diversified way, a lot of them are interested in mutual funds and are invested in mutual funds, but there's a lot you kind of need to know about mutual funds before you invest in it. It's just like any other stock. You need to do your homework before you buy, right?

Wathen: Right, right. That's what we hope to do today, is turn you into kind of a fund nerd of sorts.

Lapera: (Laughing). You're going to be the talk of the dinner party. Everyone's going to be like, "Oh I hope I sit next to so and so, they know so much about mutual funds."

Wathen: Right, right. If we can just dive into it, one of the things that I think that people do is they buy a mutual fund and they don't look at the paperwork they get from it. If you own a mutual fund, you'll receive all kinds of things in the mail, statements and annual reports. I really do think they're worth poring over. One of the things we should talk about today, is probably something called an N-CSR, which stands for Certified Shareholder Report. This report basically produces something -- it looks a lot like an income statement that you would see for an individual company. Before the show I looked at Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund (VFINX -0.03%), which is one of the biggest index funds out there. If you look at its report, it basically shows you how the fund generated income over the past year.

Its sources of revenue, per se. Those were really just three sources. You had dividends from the stock it owns, interest from short-term treasuries, and basically cash that it keeps on deck to fund redemptions as they come in, as people sell the fund. Then it earns money by lending out the stocks it owns to basically short-sellers for the most part.

Lapera: That's really interesting. Does it also give you an idea of what their portfolio looks like?

Wathen: Well yeah, it does. If you go further down you'll see a listing of its portfolio companies. For the S&P 500 Index Fund, obviously you have a pretty good idea of what you're going to own. It's basically the 500 largest stocks on American exchanges.

Lapera: Right, of course, because it's tracking the S&P 500. If you have N-CSR sitting in front of you, what are the most important things to look at?

Wathen: What I think is really interesting to look at, is to look at it like an operating business, less as a fund. So if you look at the income statement, for example, you'll see its three sources of income, then you'll also see expenses which obviously we harp on a lot at the Fool. The lower the expense of a mutual fund, all things equal, the better its performance should be. Vanguard basically breaks out its expenses into management expenses, advisory fees, what it pays its staff to run the fund, custodian fees, which are basically the cost to basically store the stocks at custodian bank. Even the costs to print shareholder reports, which Vanguard is so big, last year it spent about $1.2 million just producing and sending those reports to shareholders for its S&P 500 funds.

Lapera: That's insane.

Wathen: Yeah, it's just a colossal amount of money, if you really think about it. All in all, because this fund is so large, even though it has a tiny, tiny expense ratio, the expenses to run its S&P 500 Index Funds actually added up to about $132 million last year.

Lapera: That's nuts. Do you know about how much is invested in that fund, though?

Wathen: Between all its funds and the different share classes, it's more than $200 billion, so it's a lot of money.

Lapera: Right, so $130-150 million here and there is not really -- that's so tiny in comparison.

Wathen: It's tiny, especially consider this, right? In the same year it generated $4.5 billion dollars just from dividends on the stocks it owns, so we're talking a substantial amounts of money.

Lapera: Oh my gosh. That's a lot of money. It's hard to wrap your head around that much money.

Wathen: Yeah, it really is. It's funny too; one of the expenses was auditing fees, for example. Not to get too into the nitty-gritty, but they paid $40,000 in auditing fees for what must be the easiest auditing job in the world. Are the 500 stocks there? Yeah, they're there. OK, cool.

Lapera: That's crazy. I feel like that's something -- that's work that we give our interns to do. Speaking of which, now that I'm thinking about it. You guys should get excited for next week, because we're going to do an "Interns Ask" episode, which should be interesting and exciting. I have no idea what they're going to say to us, so if you have any basic questions, I guess try and get in touch with one of our interns and they'll ask it for you.

Going back to the mutual funds and the N-CSR, I think one of the things that you mentioned that we talk a lot about here, is the fees, the expense ratio that you are going to pay with pretty much all mutual funds that you own, or want to buy. What would be on average, do you think? I know I'm asking you to guess off the top of your head. What would you say an average expense ratio would be for one of these mutual funds, not for Vanguard, just for the industry as a whole?

Wathen: If you own an actively managed mutual fund, the fees are generally, we'll say about 1% a year. Actively managed funds cost more, obviously, because they have to hire analysts. They're doing actual stock picking. Index funds, like a Vanguard Index Fund, can be as cheap as .1% a year, or .2% a year, so a fifth to a tenth of the cost of an active fund.

Lapera: The reason that they're so much cheaper, in case you're wondering is, because they aren't doing active stock picking. They're picking based on just factors that exist, so for example one of the most popular Vanguard funds is one that tracks the S&P 500. They literally just get those 500 stocks or companies and they're like, OK, done. That doesn't require active management.

Wathen: Right, exactly. If you look at Vanguard's Index Fund for the S&P 500, I think turnover was actually 3% last year, so they only bought and sold about 3% of their stocks last year, which is pretty inactive as far as funds go.

Lapera: Yeah, but the bigger they're actively -- not bigger, I guess, because the Vanguard one is one of the biggest mutual funds in the world -- but the actively managed ones, they're going to have higher fees, because like Jordan said, you're paying all these people to be stock pickers on your behalf basically. What a lot of people don't realize, because they see 1% and they're like oh that's not much. That's only a dollar when you have a hundred, that's not that bad. It stacks up eventually. If you're investing a lot of money, 1% is a lot to be taken out of what you're getting, right?

Wathen: Right, right. That's why I think it's so important actually to really actually look at the accounting behind a fund, because if accounting is the language of business (I know I heard that all the time in undergrad), then it's definitely the language of a fund, too. It really I guess cements some central ideas that are pretty important to investing. If you turn to Vanguard's annual report for its fund, you'll come to the conclusion that dividends are really important to total returns, right? This fund generated $4.5 billion dollars alone in dividend income in one year. Dividends, that's something we talk a lot about too. That's where a lot of the return from stocks comes from, from dividends. Then you also learn, too, that the cost of managing a fund go well past just management fees.

You have the auditing fees. You have the cost to send out shareholder reports. There are a lot of advantages to scale. Vanguard's huge, so it can spread those expenses across a lot of invested dollars.

Then you can also see, there's one thing I really like is you can look at, it's net investment over time, which basically tells you how much income the fund is generating per share. It allows you to track the dividend growth, basically, of the underlying portfolio.

Lapera: Yeah, absolutely. If you take one thing away from this podcast, it's check the expense ratios on your mutual fund, especially the ones that are in 401(k)s, because I think a lot of people don't bother to check on them. I was talking to my boss earlier today and he said that his brother-in-law's money was in a 401(k). Hadn't checked what fund it was in, and the expense ratio was 2.75%.

Wathen: Oh man.

Lapera: Yeah.

Wathen: That's incredible. I actually helped a friend with his 401(k). He had two S&P 500 fund choices, one of which cost something like 0.1% a year and the other one was 0.4% a year, which, if you're not paying attention, it's very easy to pick the higher fee fund and end up paying more in fees than you have to. These funds are exactly the same. You know, they own the same stocks. They're going to get the same return, but after fees, one is obviously going to outperform the other.

Lapera: Exactly. I have to take a brief break and ask you guys, did you miss FoolFest? Does that have you down in the dumps? Do you even know what FoolFest is? Well, you are in luck. We've got a digital pass to FoolFest. It's videos of the most popular sessions, including "5 Stocks for the Next Decade"; David Gardner talking about the stocks on his watch list; presentations by Morgan Housel, Tim Hanson, Brian Hinmon, and people who are more popular than me. I didn't get to talk at FoolFest and I'm a little bit bitter. To get a sneak preview of our FoolFest digital pass go to digitalpass.fool.com/focus.

We've been talking a little bit about what you need to know when you are looking for mutual funds. We talked about N-CSR. We talked about expense ratios, all that good stuff. Why don't we talk a little bit about Vanguard. We want to talk about Vanguard, because there's a really great Economist article on it, and you can't really talk about mutual funds today without talking about Vanguard. Some background on it. It was founded in 1975 by John Bogle. People threw around the word "disruption" all the time, which I think kind of cheapens it, but Vanguard really did disrupt the world of mutual funds.

Wathen: Right, no, they absolutely did. The story is really interesting, because when Vanguard started, they actually encountered a ton of roadblocks. I don't know if you tried to launch Vanguard today, you could do it. It's really kind of remarkable. Originally, an important thing to understand about Vanguard is, it is owned by the people who invest in its funds. Just like if you bank at a credit union and you're a "member," you are an owner of the credit union. Basically, the credit union's goal isn't to make a profit. Vanguard's goal is not to make a profit. Vanguard's goal is to basically end the year kind of where it started. That's how they are able to keep their fees so low, is they don't have a profit motive, like most management companies do.

When Vanguard started its first S&P 500 Fund, it really failed to gain traction. The Economist article, it's excellent. Everyone, I'd say go read it. Vanguard's first S&P 500 Fund actually lost assets for the first seven years in business. I think it was actually 83 months, so we'll round to seven years. For the first seven years the amount of money it had invested in it went down. It really says something about Vanguard's belief in what they had: They stuck with it despite the fact that they were losing assets for seven years, which is basically an eternity in the world of investments.

Lapera: Yeah, and it's nuts, because now if you look at them, they manage $3.5 trillion dollars, which, put another way -- yeah trillion, trillion, not billion. Which put another way, is one in every five dollars invested in an ETF or a mutual fund goes to Vanguard. Vanguard owns 5% of every public American company. One place, it's insane.

Wathen: It's huge. It's insane. It really speaks to what they've put together and how they've really convinced investors that yeah a low fee way is the right way to go. For a lot of people I think it is.

Lapera: Yeah, in case you guys are curious about where we're pulling these facts, it's from an Economist article called "Index We Trust." If you really don't want to get on the Google and search it yourself, I will send it to you if you email me at [email protected], but it should be fairly easily to find.

Wathen: Right, right. One of the things it really talks about, which I think is interesting, is that Vanguard's funds, when they first started out, they weren't really cheap as they are today. There's a good chart on there. It shows in 1980 the average Vanguard fund had an expense ratio of about 0.6% of assets. Today its average expense ratio is less than 0.2% of assets. They're more than three times cheaper today than they were what is that, 35 years ago.

Lapera: Yeah.

Wathen: Yeah, 35 years ago. I've got to check my math. Really, Vanguard sits on top of a revolution toward passive investments generally. The Economist piece notes that Americans withdrew $145 billion from active funds last year and put almost $400 billion into passive index funds like Vanguards.

Lapera: Yeah, that's really interesting, but I'm sure that the listeners at home, or in the car, or running are wondering, so if Vanguard isn't out to make money for itself, what's its motivation?

Wathen: Well, the motivation is basically to drive down investment costs. John Bogle, I believe is how you pronounce his name, he basically started with the idea that hey, a mutual asset management company should actually work for its investors. It's kind of funny, because if you look at the top performing stocks over the last 25 or 30 years, asset management firms make up a huge percentage of them, because running money is a very good business. When you can take 1% of investors' assets every year and take it in the form of fees on an asset base that should go up over time. Stocks should go up over time, so the fees should go up over time. It's just a remarkably good business for the owners of the asset management firm, not necessarily for the investors in its funds.

Lapera: Yeah, this is a really crazy concept in finance, what John Bogle did, because you don't often find people who are just like, I'm going to do something that is solely for the good of the investors, without also having an asterisk on the side saying, I'm going to make a lot of money. More money than maybe necessarily I would have if I actually had the investors' good completely as my focus.

Wathen: Right, right. If you look at a company like Blackstone (BX), they're known for running private equity funds. They charge huge fees. They've absolutely destroyed everyone in private equity, but in no way has Schwarzman stayed poor, because of it. He's definitely making a boatload of money, and so have its investors.

Lapera: All right, and to be fair, Vanguard is also making a boatload of money, but they're making a boatload of money by being the best, and I think people recognize that they have their best interest at heart, so it's beneficial for them to move over to Vanguard.

Wathen: Right, right, exactly.

Lapera: Because, I mean like, sure, 0.1% doesn't sound like a lot, until it's 0.1% of $3.5 trillion dollars. That's a lot.

Wathen: That's a lot of money.

Lapera: That's a lot of money. Vanguard has a variety of funds. I think almost everyone knows about their S&P 500 which literally just tracks it [the index], but they have other funds that are, I hate to call them actively managed, but are a little bit more selective in what they have in the fund, right?

Wathen: Yeah, yeah. They're definitely actively managed, but they don't carry the fees like an actively managed fund would, because, of course again, Vanguard has no profit motive. One of its more popular funds, or one that's I guess gaining traction recently with interest rates near zero, is a fund that's called the Vanguard Dividend Growth Fund. Basically, this fund's objective is to go find income stocks that are going to pay more in dividends three, five, ten years from now than they do today. It's actually been an excellent-performing fund. I went to Morningstar and I looked at the data. If you look over the last one year, the last three years, the last five years, the last 10 years and the last 15 years, it's actually outperformed the S&P 500, which is incredible, to say the least.

Lapera: I think that the name of the fund, the Dividend Income, I can't remember exactly what it's called. Remind me.

Wathen: Dividend Growth Fund.

Lapera: The Dividend Growth Fund, I think is really attractive to investors. This is something that we actually see here, which is articles that have the word "dividend" or "income" in them just tend to outperform other articles. I don't 100% know why, because it's really interesting to me, because we'll talk about energy stocks for example, or MLP, like Master Limited Partnership-type companies, which are almost always in the energy space, and people won't click on that article.

But people will click on articles that talk about dividends. There's tons of MLPs, that have dividends. Though it's one of those things that something about the word "dividend" or "income" just triggers something in people. They're like, "Oh I'm going to buy this."

Wathen: Right, it does. I think what happens a lot unfortunately is that people get their retirement account information from their employer and they really just pick these investments based on their name, which is unfortunate, because an employer will just hand you a sheet of paper that has all these fund choices. Unless you've really actually put through the effort to go look into them, all you have is a fund name.

Lapera: Right. Let's be clear. The dividend fund has done really, really well in terms of beating the S&P. How's it done in dividends?

Wathen: Well see, that's the interesting thing. That's what I find so interesting, despite the fact that this fund has outperformed over long periods of time in terms of total return, dividend growth has actually lagged the S&P. Over the last three years, the fund's income growth, which is basically its dividend growth, grew at 7.4% versus 11.7% for the S&P. That's about a 4% difference. Over the last five years, the fund has actually had dividend growth of about 9.3% a year versus 13.3% for the S&P 500. Again, that's about a 4% difference, so it's a huge difference. While the fund is beating the S&P 500, it isn't necessarily living up to its name.

Lapera: Yeah. Does that mean you need to go and check your 401(k) right now and pull all your funds out of that particular index fund, or mutual fund if you're in it? Not necessarily. It is still doing really great, but maybe there's other options for you that are a little bit more low-cost, although it's a Vanguard fund, so I'm sure it's very low-cost.

Wathen: Yeah, I mean it's fairly inexpensive. Not to pick on them too hard, because picking stocks that are going to outperform the market is hard enough. That's something that very few, a very small percentage of active managers, can actually do. Then picking stocks that are going to outperform the market and grow dividends at a faster pace than the broad market, it's really setting an extremely high bar. It's pretty easy to go out there and find a stock that will grow its dividends faster than the S&P 500.

Companies we've talked about on this show, Visa (V -0.70%) and MasterCard (MA -0.74%), they are tremendous businesses that throw off tons of cash and can pay a very small percentage of their net income as a dividend.Theoretically they could double their dividends tomorrow and it wouldn't be a big deal, but whether they're going to outperform the market at 30 times earnings is a different question altogether, right?

Lapera: Yeah, absolutely. We've talked about what you think about mutual funds and what I think about mutual funds, what Vanguard thinks about mutual funds. I thought it would be interesting to talk a little bit about what two of the greatest investors of all time think about mutual funds, which is Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.

Wathen: Right, so Warren Buffett actually has become a big proponent of the index fund. He basically said that when he passes he wants his wealth to stay in a trust, invested 90% in S&P 500 index through a fund like Vanguard's, and then 10% of it in short-term government securities. Article upon article has been written about how simple that is in his little retirement plan. I think I actually wrote one. But Charlie Munger, who's his right-hand man actually sees the world a little bit differently. He actually said at a meeting of Daily Journal shareholders that, this is a quote, "Index funds will be permanent owners who can never sell and that will give them power they're not likely to use well."

Lapera: Yeah.

Wathen: Which stands in direct contrast to what Buffett said.

Lapera: Yeah, it does. I think that we should break that down a little bit more, because what Charlie Munger is getting at is something that we hinted at earlier, when we said that Vanguard owns 5% of all American public companies, which is that these giant funds are going to slowly start accumulating more and more share in these companies, and the question is, what are they going to do with it?

Wathen: Right, so actually let's look at a company, American Express (AXP -0.97%). That's part of the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio. That's one of its biggest investments. For a brief time, I believe it was last fall, ValueAct, which was an activist investor, briefly considered running an activist campaign against it. They bought something like, more than $1 billion of stock in American Express. It was rumored that they were going to try to get rid of American Express's CEO Ken Chenault. Well, that fell through. ValueAct I guess couldn't find the votes or couldn't get the votes, so they sold, so they can walk away. Vanguard or, say, BlackRock, which managed piles trillions and trillions of dollars of index assets, don't have that same ability. They can't sell a stock. They have to track the index.

Lapera: Right, and it's really interesting, because they do have, eventually they could have such a large stake in companies, where they could act as activist investors if they wanted to.

Wathen: Right, if they wanted to, so that's the big one. In the index fund world, there's really three names that really matter, right? There's Vanguard, obviously, which is huge. There's BlackRock, which is huge. They own iShares, the ETFs. Then there's State Street (STT -0.98%). If you look at a company like Apple, which I think is the largest constituent in the S&P 500 index. These three companies -- Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street -- collectively own about 13% of Apple. When an issue comes up for vote at Apple, they control 13% of those votes. That's a lot of power in just three hands.

Lapera: Yeah. Who knows what they're going to do with it, right? Because, they could do anything, but they might also choose to do nothing, because I don't really know what they would want to do, do you?

Wathen: Well see, that's the thing. As an investor in a mutual fund, there's another SEC filing you can look at. If there's anything that we talk about a lot, it's go to the SEC and just poke around. Mutual funds file something called an N-PX. The N-PX filing for mutual fund basically shows how the fund voted on corporate governance matters at its portfolio companies. How it voted for or against certain board members at certain companies. Over time actually the index managers haven't been that activist at all. One issue was, it was a big deal in 2013. Hewlett-Packard (HPQ -0.45%) actually had a slate of Board of Directors up for an election. Vanguard voted against them.

That turned out to be headline news just because of how rare it is for a company like Vanguard to actually take a strict position and say, no, we're actually actively voting against management here.

Lapera: Yeah, I don't know. It's really interesting to me, because you don't really know what the motives are for these giant companies, and I guess the worry could be that they get so much of a share of these companies that they start doing things that maybe aren't 100% kosher, but I guess they are technically legal, just because they own so much of it and they can. Maybe they'll start manipulating things.

Wathen: Right, well, there's kind of a conflict of interest too. If you're BlackRock, and not to pick on BlackRock in particular, but you live and die based on your assets and your management, so the more assets you have in your funds, the more money you make. A lot of these assets come from retirement accounts. A lot of these retirement accounts are at S&P 500 companies that probably wouldn't like to send their employees retirement funds to a fund that's going to vote against the CEO when it comes voting time.

Lapera: Yeah, I know. I feel like there's just this knot in the middle of my chest when I start thinking about things like this, because part of me is like, "This is great, like Vanguard gives people a lot of options. If you want to diversify your portfolio for a really cheap amount, Vanguard is a great way to go. Mutual funds in general are a great way to go, once you've done your homework." But then the other part of me thinks like, "What happens when everyone joins this mutual fund, and then what happens? Then what happens with the management of the mutual fund?" You have to hope that they have everyone's best interest at heart. Who knows if they actually, even if they have everyone's best interests at heart, who knows whether or not they'll actually make good decisions?

Wathen: Right, and that's the thing. I looked at an N-PX filing for Vanguard before we did the show. I just scrolled through it. I would say, and I'm just spit balling this, we're going to say 99.5% of the time Vanguard voted with management. They're not stirring up any feathers at their portfolio companies. There's an argument to be made too, that companies like Vanguard don't want to invest a lot of time in this, because if they go hire, say, 50 analysts to just look at corporate governance issues all day, that's just more expenses they have to pass on to the investor.

Lapera: Right. The other issue that I thought was really interesting with mutual funds is that some people are concerned, some government-type people, or analysts are concerned that when people pile into mutual funds, they might have a much more amplified effect on the economy than you would expect, right? Say you have all these people in BlackRock and Vanguard, the market dips and people leave the mutual fund, or the index fund, or whatever they're in. Then the fund has to sell the shares of the company. Maybe that artificially depresses the price of the company because people are leaving it en masse, so you have an S&P 500 like that and Vanguard sells off a lot of it, people are saying that it might mess with the economy more than if the economy would naturally dip by itself.

Wathen: Yeah, there's a really actually compelling argument that the index ETF for junk bonds actually made the whole oil situation worse, because companies that might have never gotten financing before were getting financing from junk bond ETFs. Billions of dollars were going into junk bond ETFs, like week after week after week. These managers had to go out and buy something. If you have to go buy something, and you have all this pile of money to do it, and your mandate is to go buy something, sometimes you end up financing deals that turn out to be bad, as we've learned over the last year or so.

Lapera: What's interesting, though, is that even though people are concerned about that potentially happening, even with economic downturns, people haven't really left stuff that tracks, like funds that track indexes -- indices, I suppose it is. Actually it can be either. It can be either indices or indexes, grammar tip of the day. It just depends on what style you're writing. Go look it up in your style book for whatever your institution uses. People are concerned that they would leave these indices, but even during economic downturns people don't really. They just stay. They just stay in the mutual fund or the index fund, or whatever it is. They're not really 100% sure why, but I guess there is always that fear that people could change their behavior and just leave.

Wathen: Yeah, I think Vanguard has trained people really well, in particular, to just stay the course. I would say on average your typical Vanguard index investor is probably a little more cognizant of the reality that it's a much better deal to sell stocks when they're high, not when you're worried that the world is crumbling.

Lapera: Yeah, so I think that we've covered everything that I wanted to talk about. Did you get to talk about everything you wanted to talk about?

Wathen: I think we've got it all.

Lapera: OK, excellent. I'm going to leave listeners with these reminders. Know your fund. Do your homework and check filings. The easiest way to do that is to either go to a company's website or in this case go to SEC, that's S as in Securities, E as in Exchange and C as in Commission. SEC.gov/edgar, as in your great-uncle Edgar, to check out the filings that these funds have posted.

As usual, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about and The Motley Fool may have recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks based on solely what you hear. Contact us at [email protected] or by tweeting us @mfindustryfocus to let us know what you think about mutual funds and if you've invested in any of them. Thank you to Austin Morgan, our baseball lover behind the glass, and thank you to you all for joining us. I hope everyone has a great week!