Back to top

Image: Bigstock

Is Vanguard Consumer Discret Index Admiral (VCDAX) a Strong Mutual Fund Pick Right Now?

Read MoreHide Full Article

If you've been stuck searching for Large Cap Growth funds, consider Vanguard Consumer Discret Index Admiral (VCDAX - Free Report) as a possibility. While this fund is not tracked by the Zacks Mutual Fund Rank, we were able to examine other factors like performance, volatility, and cost.

Objective

VCDAX is part of the Large Cap Growth section, and this segment boasts an array of other possible options. Large Cap Growth mutual funds purchase stakes in numerous large U.S. companies that are expected to develop and grow at a faster rate than other large-cap stocks. Companies are usually considered to be large-cap if their market capitalization is over $10 billion.

History of Fund/Manager

VCDAX finds itself in the Vanguard Group family, based out of Malvern, PA. Vanguard Consumer Discret Index Admiral made its debut in January of 2004, and since then, VCDAX has accumulated about $646.32 million in assets, per the most up-to-date date available. The fund's current manager, Chris Nieves, has been in charge of the fund since February of 2025.

Performance

Investors naturally seek funds with strong performance. This fund in particular has delivered a 5-year annualized total return of 8.03%, and it sits in the middle third among its category peers. But if you are looking for a shorter time frame, it is also worth looking at its 3-year annualized total return of 17.42%, which places it in the top third during this time-frame.

It is important to note that the product's returns may not reflect all its expenses. Any fees not reflected would lower the returns. Total returns do not reflect the fund's [%] sale charge. If sales charges were included, total returns would have been lower.

When looking at a fund's performance, it is also important to note the standard deviation of the returns. The lower the standard deviation, the less volatility the fund experiences. VCDAX's standard deviation over the past three years is 18.15% compared to the category average of 19.28%. The fund's standard deviation over the past 5 years is 21.83% compared to the category average of 20.28%. This makes the fund more volatile than its peers over the past half-decade.

Risk Factors

Investors should note that the fund has a 5-year beta of 1.27, which means it is hypothetically more volatile than the market at large. Because alpha represents a portfolio's performance on a risk-adjusted basis relative to a benchmark, which is the S&P 500 in this case, one should pay attention to this metric as well. Over the past 5 years, the fund has a negative alpha of -8.03. This means that managers in this portfolio find it difficult to pick securities that generate better-than-benchmark returns.

Expenses

For investors, taking a closer look at cost-related metrics is key, since costs are increasingly important for mutual fund investing. Competition is heating up in this space, and a lower cost product will likely outperform its otherwise identical counterpart, all things being equal. In terms of fees, VCDAX is a no load fund and it has an expense ratio of 0.09%.

Investors need to be aware that with this product, the minimum initial investment is $100,000; each subsequent investment needs to be at least $1.

Fees charged by investment advisors have not been taken into consideration. Returns would be less if those were included.

Bottom Line

Want even more information about VCDAX? Then go over to Zacks.com and check out our mutual fund comparison tool, and all of the other great features that we have to help you with your mutual fund analysis for additional information. Zacks provides a full suite of tools to help you analyze your portfolio - both funds and stocks - in the most efficient way possible.

Zacks' 7 Best Strong Buy Stocks (New Research Report)

Valued at $99, click below to receive our just-released report predicting the 7 stocks that will soar highest in the coming month.

Click Here, It's Really Free

Published in