When it comes to mutual funds, there are the good, the bad and the ugly. Let's press past the obvious Eastwood-esque reference there and ask a question: how did your funds do this year? I'm not talking about returns -- I'm talking about returns minus sales costs minus transaction costs minus (insert misc. fee here) minus tax consequences of company stock turnover inside the fund.

You see, there is a lot more to "total returns" that most mutual fund hawkers like to advertise to lure in new investors. Total returns is a meaningless figure -- what counts is the return that your bottom line sees after everything is accounted for. So, then, what were the worst funds to own in 2007? That list probably spans a few thousand funds, but let's look at a short list here.

Clipper (CIMFX) -- through December 17th -- lost 2% year-to-date (YTD). Clipper has a huge 48% share of stocks in the financial market, which, as we all know, really has done pretty poorly in the back half of the year due to subprime write-offs and risky decisions that bombed and caused the ouster of many CEOs in this sector.

How about Oakmark Select (OAKLX)? Down 14% YTD on the back of including 15% of net assets in mortgage lender (and hurting) Washington Mutual. eggs in one basket? You bet. Those are just two funds with overconcentrations in industries that had exposure to huge risks -- and were hit hard -- this year. How are your funds doing?