"DODFX is a mediocre FLV stock fund that has only kept pace with IC+ bond fund DODIX for the past ten years.
ISTM that you're rolling up multiple factors into a single number. Over the past ten years, DODFX has turned in four star performance. It is rated three stars for risk adjusted performance.
While it's more than fair to consider risk since that's @hank's main concern here, it's not quite fair to mix raw performance and risk adjusted performance in the same sentence: "mediocre" (risk-adjusted) and "kept pace" (raw performance).
We can take a closer look at those ten year performances. DODFX has outperformed its category by an average of 1.03% over the past decade (through Sept. 18, per M*). DODIX has outperformed its category by 0.40% over the past decade. Based on these figures, which is the mediocre fund?
Sure, DODIX has kept pace with DODFX. But that's because a mediocre core plus fund has outpaced a mediocre FLV fund over a decade, 4.26% to 3.95%.
"What about BND vs RBIN??"
Okay, what about it? Seriously.
Is it your thesis that a portfolio consisting of these two funds and others shouldn't be periodically rebalanced? Because current rebalancing would effectively take some money from BND and add it to RBIN. Of course that would be within the larger scope of an entire portfolio.
There are certainly many people who think rebalancing is overrated. I had asked the same question: "should [we] take money out of cash and bet it on foreign large cap value funds [that have lost value]?"
To put it another way: should rebalancing be a one-way street? Should we move money out of (long term) riskier categories into (long term) less risky categories when the former have done well, but we shouldn't rebalance the other way? That would mean we don't move money from bonds to stocks even though core plus bond have had a better ten year run (even the mediocre ones) than foreign large value funds.

I just noticed this. M* is counting the number of page views that funds (including ETFs) get and grouping funds accordingly into thirds: high, middle, and low. I can't tell whether there's any distinction made between types of funds beyond the fact that M* is doing this only for domestic funds.
M* considers this "attention" to offer some sort of "signal". M* also shows, month by month, whether attention is rising, stable, or falling. Finally, on the same "crowd source" page for a fund, it summarizes the fund's medal rating (regardless of whether it is a true analyst rating or one done by machine): high (bronze or better), medium (neutral), low (negative).
You must be logged in to see this, and probably a premium subscriber. It seems fairly useless to me because well known funds will get more attention, period. And while their analyst write-ups tend to have some useful information, I find their medal ratings useless.
Here's M*'s two page description of "Crowd Sense Signals".
https://www.morningstar.com/content/dam/marketing/shared/pdfs/Research/1014981.pdf
If it is available to you, you'll find "crowd sense" next to the "parent" tab under the fund name.

Sad what is still happening to the actual coal miners . As a descendent of multiple men who worked the mines in NE Pennsylvania it is sad that so few actually care about these men , especially from a certain political spectrum . My fore-bearers always voted a strait democratic ticket and now that party has left these men behind- very sad but that is loyalty in 21st century America.

That is one troubled fund collection of funds. (Did you miss the change of a fourth fund, from Select International Equity to International Sustainable Leaders? Or did I not catch your post?)
From Julius Baer to Artio to Aberdeen to a sustainability spin.

I doubt anyone owns this fund or cares. I stuck with Mr. Berkowitz and have been suffering for a while. He owned Sears of course and rode it to ~0. Not sure if he also owned other stinkers. He no longer gives interviews and his reports are very brief. The past two years he has been on fire still lagging overall (i am pretty sure S&P not sure about value index). He stuck to his guns and lowered fees recently. In 2019 fund was up 32.06% and this year so far 50%. St. joe is killing it this year along with imperial metals (tiny position). He still owns Fannie preferred and i guess his last hope is Supreme Court. I briefly owned CGM focus. I also owned third avenue value and that ride was miserable; i finally sold a long while ago. I never owned Bill Miller funds. I also owned and finally sold Royce small cap value. George whitney was killing it a long while ago but then performance turned south and he either left Royce or was let go. Jay Kaplan took over and the ride has been miserable. Morningstar turned sour on Berkowitz a long while ago and gave FAIRX a negative rating. Now they are dropping coverage on the fund. TIMES HAVE CHANGED.

Thanks for this!
These are advisor funds. Fidelity merged the old FSICX into an advisor fund (FADMX). Wonder if all their funds are headed that way.
**5 fund classes running as high as 2.05%.
I can Google, but is there a standard definition for all these classes ? I know I is institutional. And A is advisor, But do the others represent terms?
Annual Operating Expenses
(expenses that you pay each year as a % of the value of your investment)
Class A Class M Class C Class I Class Z
Management fee 0.68% 0.68% 0.68% 0.68% 0.68%
Distribution and/or Service (12b-1) fees 0.25% 0.50% 1.00% None None
Other expenses(a) 0.34% 0.37% 0.37% 0.36% 0.12%
Total annual operating expenses 1.27% 1.55% 2.05% 1.04% 0.80%

Wow! Lots to unpack there...I'll just address a couple points.
DODFX appears to be team managed with 5 of the 8 managers being there since 2001-2007. It's been a mediocre, M* 3-star fund in all report periods, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years.
What makes you think that somehow that same mgmt team that has only produced 3-star ratings for their entire tenure are all of a sudden gonna turn this fund into something they've been unable to do during their entire 10-20 year tenures?
DODFX has had negative returns in 4 of the past 10 years, with double-digit losses in 3 of them, 2011, 2015 and 2018, ranging between -11% to -18%. It's actually in the RED in 2020, in a year when worthy FLV funds like CIVVX are UP 5%.
You've already posted that DODIX has virtually matched DODFX's 10-yr performance with DODIX only having ONE small loss in ONE year. (Actually, it lost -0.59% in 2015 and -0.31% in 2018.)
All that said, DODFX and DODIX are an apples and oranges comparison, or more accurately, 90/10 Foreign/US stocks vs 90/10 US/Foreign bonds.
DODFX's SD is 5x-6x that of DODIX and that's not going to change much at all, overnight, or over a 3-10 year period.
I kindly suggest that you spend a little time examining exactly what these funds respectively own, and what SD and other risk measurements mean (see Investopedia link), and how those two items make this decision pretty easy.
https://www.investopedia.com/investing/measure-mutual-fund-risk/
The conclusions that should be drawn are:
DODFX is a mediocre FLV stock fund that has only kept pace with IC+ bond fund DODIX for the past ten years.
DODFX is inherently a much higher risk fund than DODIX and the chance of it not meeting investors return expectations is significantly higher.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1413594/000110465920137366/a20-38055_17497.htm
497 1 a20-38055_17497.htm 497
ABERDEEN FUNDS
Aberdeen Emerging Markets Sustainable Leaders Fund
(formerly, Aberdeen International Equity Fund)
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated December 18, 2020 to the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated February 28, 2020, as supplemented to date
(the “February 2020 Prospectus and SAI”)
Effective December 1, 2020, the Aberdeen International Equity Fund changed its name to the Aberdeen Emerging Markets Sustainable Leaders Fund and changed its principal investment strategies, including its 80% policy, benchmark and portfolio managers as set forth in a separate prospectus and statement of additional information dated December 1, 2020 (the “December 2020 Prospectus and SAI”). The Aberdeen Emerging Markets Sustainable Leaders Fund is currently offered pursuant to the December 2020 Prospectus and SAI. All references to, and information with respect to, the Aberdeen International Equity Fund are hereby deleted from the February 2020 Prospectus and SAI.
This supplement is dated December 18, 2020.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

You are right, @JD_co. The percentage is not really elevated compared to an actively managed equity fund. I have two SCG funds that should be on CapitalGainsValet’s worst offenders list.
Unrelated to TMSRX, but distributions stories: top-rated MCG BMGAX, with AUM north of $13B, did not distribute a cent this year. OTOH, a previously successful LCG fund, RiverPark Wedgewood (RWGIX) will cost shareholders a lot because of an approximately $4.25 per share distribution at an NAV of $9.05. Ouch!

This is a NY Times article and (David) feel free to move it to the Off-Topic category if you think it's more germane there.
"Nearly a year after the coronavirus outbreak, the full impact of the pandemic on the U.S. economy remains unclear. Some of the most obvious indicators are in conflict: As some companies report enormous profits, nearly 10 million more Americans are now unemployed compared with last February, and over one million filed new state and federal unemployment claims last week.
Are we still in the early stages of a long recession, or will the rollout of vaccines mean we’ll soon see the end of a short-term crisis? How much are people suffering now, and for how long will the effects of the past 10 months persist?
We asked economists and experts with a variety of backgrounds how they would measure the state of the economy now and what indicators they thought were often overlooked. Here are eight measures they suggested."
How the Economy is Actually Doing

"Clearly DODFX is positioned for a rising rate environment."
I'm not so sure about that. Over the past few years, it had been positioned as a short term fund (see M* historical style boxes here), but in 2020 it extended its duration into intermediate term territory.
Also, as I suggested above, rising interest rates could be a result of an improving economy. In that case, one would expect the spread between junk and IG to decline, making junk more attractive. In addition, junk bonds are less sensitive to interest rate changes, tending to a fair degree to track equities. See, e.g. this Balance piece.
Yet as you noted, DODIX is not taking advantage of its ability to hold lower grade bonds. It is one of the few core plus funds with a M* average credit rating of A. (Just 17 hold A rated portfolios vs. 25 with BB portfolios; over half the core plus funds have portfolios rated BBB.)
ISTM the fund is positioned for a slow slog; low and steady rates, where it is betting on rates not going up (and prices dropping), while not willing to bet on avoiding short term problems in the economy (where junk bond prices would fall).
In the equity market, rising interest rates are good for the financial sector, because people expect higher rates to lead to higher spreads and greater profits. I don't know how that connects with financial sector bond prices though. I really have no idea unless one expects lower profits to substantially increase the risk of financial institutions being unable to service their IG debt.

On April 20th, 2020, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil fell to negative $37.63 U.S. dollars per barrel. Admittedly, that was a short term aberration related to imbalances in the futures markets along with the Covid-19 panic. That said, oil’s price has tended to run in the $20-$40 range over much of the past decade, rarely getting above $50.
But oil has been climbing steadily now for several weeks. At this time, Bloomberg is showing Brent at $52 and NYMEX at $48.90. Unfortunately, the rally hasn’t helped refiner rich PRNEX much. The fund is still off 2% YTD and also negative over the past year. Curiously, Lipper places it in the top tier (5/5) in its category for “total return” - reflecting the deeper issues affecting these types of nat resource funds.
Disclosure - I’ve owned PRNEX from time to time. Sold it 1-2 months ago before it’s recent uptick. Should have held on.

DODFX currently holds 27% in financials. That’s very high. In fact it’s significantly higher than the 19% financial stake reported by T.Rowe’s Equity Income Fund (PFRDX). Clearly DODFX is positioned for a rising rate environment. Helps explain its underperformance in recent years as well as its more recent turn-around. One’s opinion on the question, I submit, needs to take into account their presumptions regarding the future of interest rates - as well as inflation and currency valuations.
Yes, per @msf, DODIX may by prospectus invest large amounts in non investment grade paper. But it hasn’t done so, currently holding just slightly above 10% in junk bonds - nearly all of it in the highest rated tier (BB).
- “Using the theory that one should take money from winners and place it on losers, we should take money out of cash and bet it on foreign large cap value funds?”
It’s an intriguing conjecture. But, No, I wouldn’t recommend that. On the other hand, if one is using “play money” (defined as 1-5% of a larger well diversified portfolio) I think it might be a good idea to do just that.

@stillers +1 (though I might recalculate the three year std dev after adjusting for the March 2020 outlier)
"I agree with stillers that beyond the 3-year threashhold DODFX has outperformed DODIX. Yet, according to Lipper, at the 10-year point their annualized returns are nearly identical: DODIX: +4.67% / DODFX: +4.85%"
However, since the timeframe you are interested in is 3 years, we can compare performance data over the past three years. M* reports that the foreign large cap value category lost an annualized average of 0.70%, through Nov 30th. See its trailing total returns here (click on Monthly tab). DODFX did bit better, losing just 0.10% annually. Fidelity reports that the average prime MMF made 1.31% annually through Nov 30th (see its graph here).
Using the theory that one should take money from winners and place it on losers, we should take money out of cash and bet it on foreign large cap value funds? Surely that doesn't sound right; MMFs are safer investments, even now, than DODFX. One can stretch rules of thumb too far, especially over short time frames.
I do agree with Giroux that IG bonds do not look attractive. However, if one accepts the Fed statement that it will keep short term rates near zero for the next three years, then one might eek out a bit better return with IG bonds than with a "high" yield savings account. That's at least until the economy heats up, which could push longer term rates higher. IMHO this small potential improvement in return isn't worth the risk but it's a thought.
But DODIX isn't a vanilla IG bond fund. It can invest a significant amount in junk - it is a "core plus" fund. While IG bonds and the stock market have essentially no correlation (BND and VTSMX have a correlation coefficient of -0.04), DODIX and VTSMX have a correlation coefficient of 0.58 over the past three years.
Edit: Over the past decade, DODFX has outperformed its category by just north of 1% annually. Not great, but enough for M* to characterize its 10 year performance as "above average" (vs. its 3 year "average" performance). It earns a lower star rating than its performance suggests because its risk is rated "high" over all time frames, and star ratings are risk adjusted.

TMSRX has distributed its holiday fare to shareholders this week. It threw off a big dollop of short term capital gains and a generous slice of income. The secret sauce ain’t cheap if held in a taxable account. Nevertheless, there is much for which to be grateful.

I felt that TMSRX's $0.29 distribution on 12-15-2020 (approx 2.7% in total) would be ok for a taxable acct.

hank: I agree with @stillers that beyond the 3-year threshold DODFX has outperformed DODIX.

Hank, FWIW, I did NOT say that. I only presented SD data for the 3-yr period, not performance data.
On cash substitutes, good that you can take the volatility of DODIX as a cash sub. That said, there is a wasteland of 2020 M* forums participants who previously thought that several multi-sector bond funds with high concentrations of securitized holdings were good cash subs. They learned some very hard lessons in Feb-Mar this year.
It doesn't surprise me that DODFX and DODIX had similar TRs over 10 years. No offense, but DODFX is not a very good FLV fund, while DODIX is a worthy domestic IC+ bond fund.
Bottom Line: Don't overthink this. You're asking if a mediocre international stock fund is riskier than a domestic IC+ fund. Risk, in its simplest form, is uncertainty concerning loss. SD, while not exactly a measure of that, is a still a worthy measure of it and DODFX's SD is about 5x-6x greater than DODIX's for all prior time frames.
Granted, the macro outlook sure is pointing to outperformance of international stocks in the coming year(s). Now if I only had a nickel for the multiple times that's been the macro thinking over my 40 years of investing, I'd, well, probably have enough money for something.

In its 30+ year history, dating back to 1989, I can find only 5 years when DODIX failed to generate a positive return. In only 1 of those years did its loss exceed 1% (it lost 2.9% in 1994). As a substitute for a money market fund (vs a clone or replica) I can under most circumstances accept that amount of volatility. Others may make their own decisions. Yahoo Performance data: DODIX
I agree with @stillers that beyond the 3-year threshold DODFX has outperformed DODIX. Yet, according to Lipper, at the 10-year point their annualized returns are nearly identical: DODIX: +4.67% / DODFX: +4.85%
And I agree that an international stock fund is inherently riskier than a predominately investment grade domestic bond fund. That’s a mathematically provable thesis as well as conventional wisdom. But an individual investor might view risk differently, asking “Which of these choices is more likely to generate gain and less likely to produce a loss over a relatively short near-term period (1-3 years) based on the macro outlook?” I’m suggesting that on the second note the “playing field” is much less uneven now than it has conventionally been. Others are concerned about fixed income as well. David Giroux in his last semi annual report called the investment grade bond market “extremely unattractive and in fact the most unattractive it has been in my whole career.” Capital Appreciation Semi-Annual Report 2020
Not seeking to answer my own question, but rather to explain why I felt it deserved to be asked. If the question didn’t have at least two sides to it, it wouldn’t be worth asking. And thanks @sillers for your input.

@wxman123 - thanks for your thoughts. I’ve been invested in PIMIX for the past 3-years during it’s asset bloated period and investment faux pas (see Argentina). Analysis and opinions from online folks has challenged me to reconsider this position on multiple occasions, even while it manages to surge during the 4th quarter each year. Still, I’ve scaled it back by 50% of my original investment.
I’ve appreciated DIAL’s rule-based investment theme of maintaining positions in 6 categories:
- HY Corporates = 30%
- Emerging Market debt = 20%
- US MBS = 15%
- US IG Corporates = 15%
- US Treas = 10%
- Global Treas = 10%
Best to all!
Brian aka Level5

DODFX is an international (LCV) stock fund which is inherently riskier than DODIX, a largely US IC+ bond fund.
While I don't gauge risk primarily by SD, many do. So here's two little data points that should answer your question (if the first statement didn't);
Prior 3-yr SD:
DODFX: 23.55
DODIX: 3.71
BTW, DODIX is NOT a cash substitute despite the fact/notion that some D&C investors might use it as such.