This fund appears to be over concentrated in pharmaceuticals and energy; not diversified at all. When benchmarked against the S&P500 (may not be the most appropriate benchmark for this portfolio) it has underperformed steadily for the last 12 years. I'd definitely move on and look for a more diversified fund that is performing competitively against a broad market index. Some good things to say about Bruce: low expense ratio, low turnover, no-load.

The Bruce fund has been under performing the last two years. Its on track to lose money again in 2023 which will make it two years in a row of negative returns. What insight does the group have on the Bruce Fund other than the Dad passed away this year. Is this a sign that Dad was the one making all of the correct decisions?

I’ve had a fairly large stake in FMSDX for about 2.5 years. Unfortunately, I bought it just before the last big market drop, and it’s just broken even during the past month. I’m sticking with it because it has a great record and I trust Fidelity’s management of its allocation funds. It pays dividends monthly, if that’s important to you. It has greatly outperformed most funds with similar asset allocations since its inception and hopefully that will continue.

Given how the site has reportedly continued to deteriorate significantly in its utility from what it once was years ago, I'll simply scrunch my eyes, cock my head, and ask "what's Morningstar?" :)

Yes and no. I bought some US Treasuries this week that are maturing in 3-6 months with yields about 5.3%. I consider them comparable to CDs with certain advantages. My CD ladders will have issues maturing every 6 months or so over the next 5 years. I’ll decide where to reinvest as they mature. If CD yields stay above 4%, I’ll probably continue to buy them, but might put some of the money in bond funds. If Treasury yields are comparable to CDs, I’ll probably keep buying them too. Their liquidity and tax advantages are pluses.

Tarwheel, you bring up a very relevant consideration--how low must CD rates fall, before they will no longer be considered for your portfolio. You have chosen 4%, and I am wondering what others have set as their "floor" before you start moving money to a different kind of asset. I thought 4% as the floor as well, especially since longer term brokerage CDs are already dipping below 4%, although that could be just a year end dip.

Yes and no. I bought some US Treasuries this week that are maturing in 3-6 months with yields about 5.3%. I consider them comparable to CDs with certain advantages. My CD ladders will have issues maturing every 6 months or so over the next 5 years. I’ll decide where to reinvest as they mature. If CD yields stay above 4%, I’ll probably continue to buy them, but might put some of the money in bond funds. If Treasury yields are comparable to CDs, I’ll probably keep buying them too. Their liquidity and tax advantages are pluses.

@crash and @hank, thanks for the clarification. Tactical moves does require larger % to make meaningful impact on the overall portfolio. Large move for us was to exit (most) bonds in late 2021 to cash equivalent as inflation became evident. 50/10/40 stock/bond/cash work out okay.
Since The summer we moved the opposite direction and stopped buying CDs and T bills. Think the sweet spot are those in intermediate term range, 5-7 years. Small bet on long bonds net over 10% as 10 treasury yield dropped to below10%. Other high yield bonds are doing very well, many have netted double digit total returns. Going forward there are more opportunities in bonds as the FED apparently had reached the pivot point. When and if the rate cut comes, bonds will do well in 2024.
In the meantime we will maintain a healthy % in stocks ( to combat inflation) but wait for “fat pitches” as stocks are not cheap.

This thread is directed toward those who currently own CDs. I have used CDs extensively for almost 2 years now, watched CD rates go over 5%, but now CD rates are dropping. As my my CDs mature, I am hearing a lot of chatter about why it is not a good idea, to continue investing in CDs, because stocks and bond options are pretty much guaranteed to make more than CDs. In the last several weeks, I have chosen to buy some bank CDs at my personal bank for 5.25%, but my brokerage CDs are selling in the 4% ranges now, because the FEDs projected rate cuts.
Are any "current" CD owners still buying CDs, with cash that becomes available to you, from maturing CDs or other cash sources?

Speaking for myself, it's just the way I was raised. Along the way it just became part of my curiosity toolkit to compare and contrast funds and their holdings, as well as what they are charging for doing business with them.
One example I can think of involves green energy funds. I steered clear of the ones that featured a lot of consumer durables in the nature of electric vehicles. That's more of a sector orientation though. And I can't say that it has done me much good so far.
Another example would be cogitating on the performance difference between FBALX and PRWCX.

Same. To wit: I remember when Berkwitz's Fairholme Fund was all the rage; I looked and its' top holding was like 40% of the fund, so I thought that was a little much (it was either Sears or St Joe, I forget). I just like to know what it holds & how it's allocated/investing before I jump onboard!
Same when PRGTX was the 'hot' fund a few years ago - its #1 holding was like 10-15% in TSLA. which was an immediate turn-off for me.

Initiated starter position in Liberty Broadband Corporation's Series A preferreds (LBRDP) $ 22.50 as a long-term income holding.

SEQUX has about 1% in their A shares, another 3% in their C shares, and 5.08% in Liberty Formula ! (FWONK ). It's not the worst taxable fund I have owned over 10 years. So I am also interested in what the attraction is.
I see now that SEQUX has added two more small slices from Liberty, one being the Atlanta Braves. Is this going to be their next Valeant?

I stopped paying attention to M* many years ago, MFO is better.
One of the best ways for better performance is concentration in the right funds.

M* fund PDFs were free in the old days. Then, they were moved to its professional/advisory software with some legalese (for clients) & dozen+ pages. Now, it's available as 1- or 2-pages in the new M* Investor (subscription required).

I get M* 'analyst' reports thru Schwab and WF that seem mostly like the 'old ones' of years past, albeit with new styling, subject headings, etc. It is nice to have one multipage document that shows the 'analyst''s prior comments on the stock to help put things in context and/or help decide how useful their thoughts really are.

FBALX is team managed, and Fidelity has a large stable analysts to draw from. M* praises other fund companies for using team management but they don’t seem to like Fidelity’s approach, even when it yields excellent results. I’ve owned FBALX for more than 20 years and only regret not buying more of it, rather than many of M*’s recommendations.

I remember that M* "phonebook". My wife and I used to go to Barnes & Nobles or Borders quite a lot many years ago. We would spend an entire afternoon there. That M* funds book was my go to, sit-around and drink coffee entertainment. I would spend hours paging through all those funds and taking notes while my wife walked around picking up a stack of actual literature to read. Yeah, ok, she's smarter than me.

I was reflecting on years past when M* fund reports were printed on tissue paper and arrived in that huge telephone book binder ( Only grey beards will know what I am referring to. Out went to single reports, along with the useful information and concise analysis.
Others may have also discovered, as I just did, that the single page pdfs on funds are still available at the new M* investor if you "Download" a report. Unfortunately the fund analysis is still written by computer, but the data on style, portfolio composition etc is available in one sheet.
Still unable to import a portfolio into Investor.

@yogibb said, I have noted elsewhere that FBALX is among the more aggressive moderate-allocation funds (nominal 50-70%). This shows in its higher volatility and higher effective-equity.

FBALX is actively managed and tracks Vanguard Balanced Index fund and with heavier weighing in the tech %. This alone contributed to better performance. I prefer the more conservative, FMSDX, whose manager has running the fund for well over 10 years. Other than a handful of funds such as Contra and Low Priced Stocks, many Fidelity funds have high turnover on their managers. I agree with M* rating based on the mutual fund track record of the manager(s) tenure. The forward performance becomes less relevant whenever there is new management.
@MikeM, I also like PRCFX for a different reason; really like to explore the bond strategy of this new fund. @msf posted information on a SMA managed by Farris Shuggi. I think there are good opportunities on bonds next year.

Yes but mostly no. I picked up a bit of PFE 6 wks ago, and held on to POAGX (lots of biotech held there) hoping for a healthcare rebound of sorts although I've come to eschew the sector for many of the reasons expressed so far. I've never shown a great ability at selecting individual winners and losers in the sector outside of taking a flyer on ABBV a few years ago. Same holds true for financials and energy. I let my broad based ETF's deal with those 3 areas for the most part.

M* continues to slight FBALX, one of the top performing balanced funds over every time period. Yet they promote TRPBX, a mediocre fund at best. I owned both for many years (until I moved funds from TRPBX to FBALX this year), and FBALX has greatly outperformed TRPBX over the past 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 years with slightly higher volatility.

International value funds I own, MOWNX, BISMX,COBYX (heavily invested in Latin America) have beaten the SP500 in last three years with lower drawdowns. CCISX also but with equal loss in 9/2022. Typical Emerging market funds ( SIGIX GQGPX) have not done as well, although it appears they have beaten their peers. I would look for funds that are well run, invest in areas off the beaten path and have lower correlations with the US.

The following funds are currently being considered.
Seafarer Overseas Value Institutional (SIVLX)
GQG Partners Emerging Markets Equity Inv (GQGPX)
Artisan International Explorer Advisor (ARDBX)
Fidelity International Small Cap (FISMX)
I welcome any input or new fund suggestions.
Thanks!

I'm guessing this is the same question/discussion which appeared on Big Bang! but I'll chime in again here.
1. SIVLX (EM Value) is GMO's favorite sector for return-to-the-mean (RTTM) over the next 7 years. For what that's worth (GMO's record is fairly spotty). I am invested in FEDDX in a slightly blendier space. Seafarer seems like a solid, shareholder-friendly house.
2. FISMX: I am a fan. Owned it for a while, and recently added. Foreign SC is another GMO favorite for RTTM outperformance.
Actively managed foreign funds present a problem. If you hold them in tax-deferred, you cannot claim a credit on foreign taxes paid. Not an issue for growthy funds (eg VWILX) that pay little/no dividends, but possibly an issue for value/dividend funds. If you hold them in taxable, you are subject to nasty CG distributions. Hence: I hold VWILX in tax deferred, and use ETFs in taxable for divvy payers (eg SCHY, DFIV, FIVA, VYMI, etc.)
That leaves the question of where to hold funds like SIVLX, FISMX, and FEDDX. I choose to hold them in tax deferred. I lose a small tax credit, but I avoid getting whacked by CGs in taxable.