Short version: mutual fund NAV history does not appear to be adjusted for share splits or for capital gains distributions, so the risk and return figures for any mutual fund, and any portfolio holding one, come out badly wrong. ETFs in the same tables look correct.

The clearest example is SMPIX (ProFunds Semiconductor UltraSector). SMPIX did an 8-for-1 share split on October 14, 2024. Published NAV went from about $378 on October 11 to about $48.71 on October 14. Same money, eight times as many shares. The fund's actual return that day was roughly +3%. Unless I'm misreading the methodology, the site treats that as a one-day price crash of about -87%. What SMPIX currently shows: worst daily return -88.43% on October 14, 2024; maximum drawdown -94.52%; 3-year annualized -12.87%; 5-year annualized -1.35%. The real 3-year and 5-year returns are strongly positive, and anyone can verify the split in the fund's published history.

The same thing happens with distributions. Mutual funds pay capital gains distributions, usually in December, and NAV drops by the amount paid out. That is not a loss to the shareholder, because they receive the distribution. It looks like those drops are being counted as losses, which shows up as an inflated dividend yield and a wildly overstated drawdown. Examples: FSELX shows a dividend yield of 10.19% and a max drawdown of -82.54%; VAFAX shows a dividend yield of 13.44% and an overall rank of 11; FOCPX shows a dividend yield of 6.50%; FSENX shows a 10-year return of 10.31% next to a 5-year return of 26.30%, and a 10-year rank of 1.86 next to a 5-year rank of 82.22. The ETFs in the same tables (SOXX, SPMO, SPY, ONEQ, RSPG) all look right, which is what makes me think this is specific to how mutual fund NAV history is adjusted.

I think this is urgent rather than cosmetic. Anyone screening a 401(k) or 403(b) lineup here is comparing mutual funds against ETFs, and right now the mutual funds are showing drawdowns of 80 to 95 percent that never happened. That is the kind of number that talks someone out of a perfectly sound fund, or out of a sound strategy, for the wrong reason.

If I've got this wrong, I'd genuinely like to know, since I rely on these rankings. Happy to provide more examples.