Your brokerages provide the up to date top 10 holdings of your mutual funds and ETFs. Fidelity and Schwab do a solid job.

Isn't there some way to find the top 10 portfolio holdings for a given mutual fund in morningstar.com? I'm sure there used to be, but I was looking for it just now and couldn't find it. Did they remove it?

I can't understand why SWAN has a low ranking. It has to offer amongst the best risk-reward over it's short life, CAGR 15.9 Sharp 1.59 Max DD 5.06.

@waxman, Thanks for reading and commenting. Here is an explanation that I just posted on Seeking Alpha:
The Ranking system is good but not perfect. This article exploited some of areas, such as my lowest ranked funds, where an investor may follow shorter term trends instead of the ranking system. The benefit is that the spreadsheet does millions of calculations and provides good insights that would be impossible to keep straight without it.
One thing that hurts SWAN is its Lipper Category, "Large Cap Core", because I use the average bear market performance of the Lipper Category for the past three bear markets. It would be better classified as an "Alternative" in my opinion. Low yield also hurts. Momentum has been low during the past three months. Finally, Consistency is the percent of times the fund performed average or better during its life up to 13 years. It did great in 2020, but not 2020 for the Large-Cap Core Category.

I bought DIVO during the COVID pullback in March. Several years ago, I had spoken with the subadvisor, Capital Wealth Planning in Naples, FL about a separately managed account based on this strategy. Why bother when you can buy DIVO?

I agree, @little5bee on DIVO. I don't own it, but I like Amplify. The fund has been around since 2017 and has $140M in assets. I do prefer ETFs over CEFs, and the yield is competitive.
Thanks for reading.

I can't understand why SWAN has a low ranking. It has to offer amongst the best risk-reward over it's short life, CAGR 15.9 Sharp 1.59 Max DD 5.06.

While it’s true that anyone who has been cautious at anytime since Greenspan gave his irrational exuberance speech in 1995 has missed out on some share of their potential returns - that doesn’t mean that being cautious and prudent about possible losses is necessarily wrongheaded. Everyone needs to evaluate and recognize their need, ability & willingness to take risk. Or to put it another way, no one should take more risk than they need to.

@msf - You are absolutely correct re duration. I had no idea D&C was running that short a duration on DODLX. (I’ll have to read those fund reports even more closely.) FWIW - Yahoo puts the category average at 7.4 years - more than double what DODLX is at. I can’t explain it. Judging by DODLX’s recent performance & behavior I’d have guessed a longer duration than 3.4 years.
This won’t convince me that DODLX is less risky than PRIHX. I read a lot into a fund’s daily behavior and the latter certainly looks less dicey. (I’ve even begun stashing some excess budgetary cash in it - though I don’t recommend that to anyone else.)
FWIW - David Geroux might just agree with me re PRIHX’s relative attractiveness, writing in the earlier referenced fund report: “We find the rest of the fixed income market, outside of short-duration high yield bonds, to be extremely unattractive and in fact the most unattractive it has been in my whole career.”

- I’ve been slowly reducing exposure to this one for the last 9-10 months because it’s had a very good run in recent years and may be nearing some sort of retrenchment. The “slack” (so to speak) has been taken up by PBDIX and PRIHX, both of which I consider less risky - the former because of its higher credit quality (and lower ER) and the latter because of its shorter duration.

There are reasons to prefer muni bonds to taxable bonds (e.g. IRMAA in retirement, net investment income tax, etc.), but all else being equal, I'm missing some of the appeal of PRIHX.
As of Sept 30th, the effective duration of PRIHX was 4.34 years vs. 3.40 for DODLX (both per M*).
The SEC yields are 2.07% for PRIHX (as of Nov 30th), and 2.69% for DODLX (as of Sept. 30th). The latter translates to 2.04% after federal taxes of 24%, a virtual wash (albeit with a different reference date).
Where PRIHX looks better as a "regular" bond fund is in its much lower volatility (4.81 vs. 7.42 standard deviations) and much lower correlation with the equity market (0.21 coeff of correlation vs. 0.71 for DODLX), per Portfolio Visualizer.
As you wrote elsewhere, DODLX shifted 20% of its portfolio (into corporate bonds) in the first half of the year. It's a fund that (tries to) go where the market is moving, so I'm not particularly concerned about retrenchment. Though I do appreciate the desire to take some money off the table from the winners.

Thanks for share. There are few there I've had under consideration when I do portfolio realignment in the beginning of the year, and some I already have. Unfortunately I am unable to do ETF's in my 401k brokerage account, (mutual funds only) and some buckets are ETF exclusive. Would love to see this for mutual funds only.
Have a great New Year!

Another Value Perspective:
Unravelling value's decade-long underperformance (and imminent resurgence)
unravelling-values-decade-long

Thank you, well written and insightful read.

His timing is impeccable on a number of holdings. He managed to deploy half of the 20% cash in March. GE appeared to be a solid pick. Facebook is no longer in the top 10 positions in the latest report.

The OP spoke of an 18yo and "ways to mitigate that [7y hole based on GMO predictions] risk."

>> If there are ways to mitigate that risk and increase the likelihood of a better outcome then it'd be interesting to think about the options.
So what would concrete advice be? DCA? Delay starting now because valuations? Some sort of reverse glide path?
>> In the real world, workers invest money periodically over their careers. Sequence of return matters.

How do we know how and when to do act?
If people are proposing that GMO predictions are truly useful, everyone had better start paying attention to them.
Here's a paper concluding they are indeed prescient. It's from 12y and 1mo ago, middle of November '08.
http://public.econ.duke.edu/Papers//PDF/GMO_Predictions1.pdf
Of course here's the end of Q1:
https://www.gmo.com/americas/research-library/gmo-7-year-asset-class-forecast-1q-2020/

Hello
Many good funds to look at especially Fidelity schwab Vanguard families
Thank you Mr Bolin for a good read
Kind regards
Happy holidays
Best Funds To Own In 2021
https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4394450-best-funds-to-own-in-2021
Dec. 13, 2020 12:00 PM ETAOM, ARBIX, BASIX...2
Summary
Over 300 no load mutual funds available to small investors, nearly 200 exchange-traded funds, and over a dozen closed-end funds representing 120 Lipper Categories are ranked.
The funds are ranked based on Risk, Risk Adjusted Performance, Momentum, Quality, Yield, and Consistency. They are divided into 15 investment buckets for risk, exposure, yields and trends.
The funds are reported by short-term performance including three-month returns and trends, ten-month moving average, fund flows, maximum draw downs, and yield.

"My take is So what? 40y??"
It sounds like you are thinking about a single 40 year investment. Of course if we invest money in something with an average return of X% over 40 years, it doesn't matter what the sequence of returns is. We wind up with (1 + X%) ^ 40 times the original investment regardless of how the annual returns are sequenced.
In the real world, workers invest money periodically over their careers. Sequence of return matters.
One way of thinking of the accumulation phase is as a decumulation phase in reverse. Run time backwards from point of retirement to point of hire. Instead of adding money periodically, as time goes backward you're withdrawing money periodically. (I have this mental image of someone walking backward out of a brokerage with a check in hand.)
If you have good years shortly before retirement (or shortly "after" retirement as time rolls backward), you do better. What "better" means here is that your pot at the point of retirement is larger. If you have bad years near retirement, you do worse.
This makes sense because the closer you are to retirement, the larger the portfolio and the more a bad year will hurt. This is the idea in using glide paths prior to retirement.

@racqueteer - you said "They also have a lifetime of 25-30 years, apparently; so that's a LOT of replacing which would be ongoing."
By the same token furnaces, pumps, drilling/excavating machinery, etc., etc., etc. break down and need to be replaced. Maybe the costs are a tossup and maybe they aren't I don't know. However one option leaves us with possibly a cleaner planet to live on while we figure it out or discover something better. I say we at least start to move the other way even if 15 years is not doable. It's a goal much like putting a man on the moon. Whatever we're doing now isn't going to cut it and there is no planet B.

While Dodge and Cox was buying Facebook early in 2020 (see my above post), it appears David Giroux over at TRP was selling it.
From PRWCX’s June 30 Semi Annual Report: “In addition, we have systematically reduced our exposure to COVID-19 winners such as Amazon (now a top 5 underweight), life science tool companies, Visa, and Facebook.”
Hmmm ... :(

I still have FGDFX on my watch list and continue to be quite impressed by its excellent risk/reward profile since its inception in May. Its total return since then is 41%, and over the past one and three months, it gained 5% and 15.4%, respectively, all with a fairly reasonable P/E of 24.6.
M* puts the fund in the large blend category but classifies its investment style as large growth. It's current standard deviation, according to Portfolio Visualizer, is 18%.
However, as I said previously, I am still not comfortable with the fund's current management structure. In a "team managed" environment, who, for example, is in charge of asset allocation from among the five underlying funds? What about risk control across the portfolio of FGDFX? Who has the final decision making responsibility? Wish Fidelity would provide some clarity in the fund's prospectus.
For the time being, I am still sitting on the sidelines. If this intriguing new fund continues to do well in the future, I may well pull the trigger and "test drive" it to "see where it goes".
Fred

VWINX is my "go-to" fund to benchmark this category. That's not to say there aren't comparable funds. But because it is such a solid long term performer, for me to prefer another fund to this one I would want to see something about the other fund that was significantly better.
BAMPX also looks like a solid fund. Slightly weaker than VWINX over ten years, a dead heat over five, better over the past three years, and much better over the past year. Its better numbers are due primarily to its current (2020) year's performance. For periods ending in 2019, the long term figures still look great, but not superior:
1 year (2019): 16.68% (BAMPX) vs. 16.87% (VWINX)
3 years (2017-2019): 24.04% vs. 24.96%
5 years (2015-2019): 28.97% vs. 36.41%
10 years (2010-2019): 104.79% vs. 111.41%
While I don't disregard this year's performance, I do ask whether the gap between these funds was a one off or something repeatable. In addition, you might want to discard all BAMPX history before 2016, because its current lead manager Michael Gates took over in mid 2015 and the fund shifted from being a moderate allocation fund to being a conservative allocation fund. That's a serious point to consider.
VWINX is what I might call an old school conservative allocation fund - large cap value, bond allocation hugging 60% (57% - 61% over the past five years). BAMPX is more "modern", with a growth leaning blend portfolio and a lower bond allocation, around 50% (39% to 56% over the past five years). This has resulted in performance that has been slightly more volatile. Standard deviation comparisons over the past 3/5/10 years are:
8.52 (BAMPX) vs. 7.72 (VWINX) / 6.96 vs 6.35 / 7.44 vs. 5.51
As noted above, perhaps we should disregard the 10 year figure. The volatility of BAMPX over the 3 and 5 year periods are below category average, so this comparison is not to suggest that it is an excessively volatile fund.
On the plus side, the fund is pretty small at $½B. I happen to like the fact that it invests some equity overseas (currently about ¼ of its equity); others may consider this a negative. Its cost, 0.68% ER (0.73% without waivers) is reasonable, though obviously much higher than that of VWINX.
Where it looks a bit odd is in its portfolio. This is a fund of funds, so one would expect it to have a modest turnover, tweaking allocations. But its turnover rate of 98% is somewhat high even for funds that invest directly in individual securities. According to its latest (Sept. 30th) annual report, it holds 11 equity funds, 3 fixed income funds, and 2 MMFs.
Blackrock equity funds: EM class K (5% of portfolio), Technology Opportunities class K, Master Advantage Large Cap Core Portfolio (5%)
iShares equity ETFs: Core MSCI EAFE (4%), Core S&P Small Cap (4%), Core S&P Total US Stock Market (15%), ESG Aware MSCI USA (11%), MSCI EAFE Growth (7%), MSCI Min Vol USA, MSCI USA Value Factor, US Medical Devices
Blackrock fixed income funds: Strategic Income Opportunities Portfolio class K (8%), Master Total Return Portfolio (22%)
iShares fixed income ETF: iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (6%)
(The Master funds are "master" funds in master/feeder configurations. MDLRX is a retail fund feeding into Master Advantage Large Cap Core, MAHQX is a retail fund feeding into Master Total Return.)
Overall, BAMPX looks like a solid fund from an excellent fund family. While its portfolio seems slightly aggressive (both in terms of a higher equity allocation and its dabbling in sectors), it manages to keep volatility in check. Based on its turnover rate and plethora of underlying funds, I couldn't guess at its strategy (spaghetti against a wall?), but it seems to work. It looks like a worthwhile fund; for me I don't see a compelling reason to prefer it to VWINX.

Found this, which seems to do a good job of summarizing the arguments for solar; both pro and con.
I appear to have been incorrect about the landmass required for solar panel replacement of fossil fuels, though problems related to transmission persist. They also have a lifetime of 25-30 years, apparently; so that's a LOT of replacing which would be ongoing. I apologize for my previous misstatement. No excuse; simply a case of something I KNOW which doesn't happen to be true.
BTW, I'm not known here, but those who DO know me, know that I'm pretty much apolitical. Either what someone says makes logical sense or it doesn't; their politics are irrelevant to me. I also don't make a habit of expressing my own political beliefs, as they don't fall into some neat box. BOTH major parties are problematic for me, as BOTH have to be seen as placating their extreme wings (my opinion), and I don't agree with extremist positions. My intent is not politically motivated; if you take offense with logical arguments I present, that is YOUR political predisposition talking, not mine.

>> Solar has the same issue; there simply isn't the landmass to hold enough panels to replace fuel burning.
Huh? Where did you get that?
I read this (from Off the Grid) years ago and knew about it prior, when I put solar on my roof.
2.8 acres per 1GWh. Solar would have to produce about 4 million GWh of electricity annually to provide enough energy to power the entire USA. At 2.8 acres per GWh, then about 11,200,000 acres of land would give us what we need to produce the 4,000,000GWh of solar power. There’s 1.8 billion acres of land in the USA, so about 0.6% of our land is all it would take. Wait, “all it would take”? 11.2 million acres is a huge amount of land, right? Yes and no. Now I probably would not want to build an 11.2 million acre solar farm, but spread out across the whole country that’s very reasonable. If every single family home roof top in America were covered in solar panels for example that would give us about half of the energy.
Drive around and look at commercial buildings and see how much rooftop acreage currently has solar. It is dumbfounding how much flat roof faces the sky with nothing on it but hvac equipment.