Just posted latest ratings and flows to MFO Premium site using Refinitiv data drop through Friday, 5 December 2025.

[snip]
2. There will be no performance related input as the performance-alpha
of the old/current Medalist Ratings will be dropped.
I think that people in future may find highly-rated (new) Medalists whose performance stinks.
[snip]
Bottom line? By M*'s own analysis of comparative data,
the new Medalist Ratings will have 29.3% Gold + Silver + Bronze vs only 22.8% now.
So, the Medalist Ratings of several funds will go up and that should make fund firms
and their holders happy. Well, why not some grade inflation here?
[snip]

Current Medalist Ratings do not incorporate a distinct Performance Pillar.
"Morningstar evaluates a vehicle’s performance as part of its overall assessment.
However, performance is not a distinct pillar.
Rather, Morningstar considers performance within the context of the other pillar
assessments it conducts, notably People and Process."
Morningstar Medalist Rating Methodology ver. 1.8
https://s205.q4cdn.com/437373358/files/doc_downloads/2025/03/25/1227010-42.pdf
Performance data may be incorporated within the People and Process pillars
and be measured against category averages instead of category benchmarks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the methodology for Medalist Ratings was last modified in October 2024.
It appears that the latest methodology enhancements will bring Medalist Rating
distributions to about the same levels seen prior to the October 2024 changes.
"We expect around 20% of rated funds to see a rating change because of this methodology
enhancement, most of those being downgrades. As a result, we expect the Medalist Ratings
distribution to shift, with Gold, Silver, and Bronze ratings projected to account for around 23%
of rated global funds compared with about 30% today."
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/why-were-enhancing-morningstar-medalist-rating
Edit/Add: Discover the Future of Morningstar’s Medalist Ratings
Dec 11 2025, 11:00 AM PST | 60 mins
https://www.morningstar.com/business/insights/webinars

WY is mentioned by Barron's - it trades well below the value of its timberland holdings.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/964/weekly-business-digest-december-2025

At your link I noticed Barron's tout for Casey's. My late father in law was a fan. But it was a small part of his portfolio, which was mostly Iowa Power and Light.
I have been in more than a few Casey's. There's nothing wrong with them per se, if you like 7-11 and the like. But given their locations, it's hard for me to come up with a growth story given the rising prices of just about every input to the agricultural economy due to tariffs. And that's before we get to who wants to buy what we have to sell.
The only game in town ain't always a great game.

Amusing. Hard to argue here. But his "long term" time-horizon (as to what works) appears to be only 5-10 years. Who's he kidding there? The term alternative is pretty broad. Generally used to describe gimmicky funds. TMSRX had a favorable start but quickly faded. And BAMBX looked like a sure winner at one time. Great write up by LB in Barron's perhaps 8-10 years ago. A dog lately.
What is left unsaid is people look to alternatives as insurance against steep short-term losses (ie -50% on the S&P). And insurance is always a losing proposition - unless and until you need it. I like L/S funds for risk-averse investors. Don't know if they are considered alternative funds or not. It's a name game

MFOP shows BUFTX has had 88% net outflows in the past 5 years. Quite linear with time.

Helping Investors Separate the Signal From the Noise...
00:00 Intro
00:33 Lesson #1: Don't Fear All-Time Highs
04:47 Lesson #2: Panic Is a Signal
07:39 Lesson #3: Every Loves a Comeback Story
10:09 Lesson #4: The Status Quo Is Hard to Break
13:24 Lesson #5: Why You Diversify
17:55 Lesson #6: Every Bear Market Is Different
22:48 Lesson #7: Time Is More Valuable Than Money
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LutENzRsYL0

WY is mentioned by Barron's - it trades well below the value of its timberland holdings.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/964/weekly-business-digest-december-2025

I like most of my bond funds to have a low correlation to the S&P 500. But other factors certainly come into play such as duration, and the nature of the bonds the fund is investing in.

Ya, the days go by faster and faster. My final single-stock divvy for '25 will arrive already, next Friday. My son has his Christmas gift money from us now, already. Next week, MFs will start paying in quick succession. Misty little rain shower here now. And Anna Popovic at The Blue Note, this coming Sunday night. Week-end feels good. Note to self: do not over-water the plants.

does anyone use this for allocation\buy\sell decision making?
1,3,5,10yr ? weighted?
annoying m* doesnt provide this simple analytic.

M* published a lengthy 2025 Diversification Landscape report which includes numerous
three-year correlation matrixes along with several matrixes for longer time periods.
Correlations were calculated at the asset/sub-asset class level.
https://www.morningstar.com/lp/diversification-landscape

Update: For some reason, Fido can't get rid of the notice on the preview page that there's a TF
($49.95) for any purchase of any NTF fund. But, a csr told me today, the TF will not be charged.
I tested that assertion today, and it seems to be right.
Guess I'll see tonight when the transaction actually goes through.

Thanks for the update!

Update: For some reason, Fido can't get rid of the notice on the preview page that there's a TF ($49.95) for any purchase of any NTF fund. But, a csr told me today, the TF will not be charged. I tested that assertion today, and it seems to be right. Guess I'll see tonight when the transaction actually goes through.

Barry Ritholtz writes:
Sturgeon’s Law states, “90% of everything is crap.”¹
I have taken it upon myself to craft “Sturgeon’s Corollary,” which states the following:
“90% of all investment products are crap.”
https://ritholtz.com/2025/12/sturgeons-corollary
¹ See Effectiviology, which notes that Sturgeon formalized it further in the March 1958 issue of Venture,
calling it “Sturgeon’s Revelation.”

From Markets A.M. newsletter by Spencer Jakab.
On this day in 1856, Jacob Little, one of Wall Street's biggest speculators,
went bust with unfunded liabilities of $10 million.

Depending on your interest and background, you may enjoy this use of correlation matrices:
The Matrix Effective Rank: Measuring the Dimensionality of a Universe of Assets

Quantifying how diversified is a universe of assets is an open problem in quantitative finance, partly because there is no definite formula for diversification1.
Let’s make the (reasonable) assumption that the way assets are moving together within a universe is important for its diversification.
This in turn makes asset correlations within a universe important in determining how diversified it is.
...Results
The results obtained are remarkably consistent with those of Fleming and Kroeske(8):
The effective rank varies a lot through time(14), as illustrated on Figure 3
Evolution of the effective rank
Figure 3. Evolution of the effective rank
The proportion of total variance explained is both very high and very stable through time(15), as illustrated on Figure 4.
Figure 4. Proportion of the total variance explained
Another possible usage of the matrix effective rank, hinted in Fleming and Kroeske(8), is to use it as an indicator of systemic risk.
Indeed, it appears that the matrix effective rank bottoms around market crashes (financial crisis of 2007–2008, Corona crisis of 2020…).
Maybe a subject for another time…

Portfolio Visualizer (PV) and Test Fol provide correlation matrix for holdings. It may be useful to glance at them and look for unusual values. One can also check if the portfolio is diversified - it isn't if all correlations are 0.95+.
For portfolio construction, other MPT stats such as SD, beta, Sharpe Ratios, may be more useful.

Was there supposed to be a link with the OP?
From Bing's AI:
"A full portfolio correlation matrix is a square matrix that displays the correlation coefficients between every pair of assets within a portfolio, with values ranging from -1 to +1. Each cell in the matrix represents the correlation between two assets, where a value of 1 indicates perfect positive correlation (assets move in the same direction), -1 indicates perfect negative correlation (assets move in opposite directions), and 0 indicates no correlation. The diagonal elements of the matrix are always 1, as each asset is perfectly correlated with itself. This matrix is derived from the covariance matrix by standardizing the covariances using the standard deviations of the respective assets. It is a key tool for assessing diversification benefits, as lower correlations between assets generally lead to reduced portfolio risk. The matrix can be used to calculate portfolio variance and standard deviation, which are essential for risk assessment in modern portfolio theory. For a portfolio with multiple assets, the full correlation matrix allows investors to understand the co-movement of all assets simultaneously, helping to identify potential diversification opportunities or risks".
Never heard of it before. Do play with correlations in setting up what is hoped to be a balanced portfolio. Following a wide range of assets over many years is a good way to get a sense of correlations. Doesn't always work. ISTM equities and bonds are thought to be negatively correlated. In '22 that wasn't the case. When an asset enters bubble territory (extreme overvaluation) trying to achieve balance by using correlations may be of little use. Suspect the opposite is also true of broken-bubble (steeply undervalued) assets. I've heard it said that gold is inversely correlated to most other assets. Dunno about that. ISTM it runs in immense cycles lasting 3-5 years on both the upside and downside. Can double or halve in value over a couple years time. Wouldn't suffice for my bomb shelter.
Can it be said cash is the ultimate non-correlated asset?

does anyone use this for allocation\buy\sell decision making?
1,3,5,10yr ? weighted?
annoying m* doesnt provide this simple analytic.

Situation got so bad that Yieldstreet name was hurting the company, so it changed its name to Willow Wealth last week. Web searches for Yieldstreet lead to URLs for Willow Wealth.
But one thing didn't change - continued investors losses from private real estate project defaults. It also removed historical performance data from its website because those were embarrassingly bad.
As for the fees charged for offering private investments from other firms, it layers its own fees on the top and total ERs for those may be 3.3-6.7% on Willow Wealth platform.
News https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/05/yieldstreet-investors-losses-willow-wealth-rebrand.html
Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_Wealth
New Website https://www.willowwealth.com/
Name Change https://www.willowwealth.com/blog/article/yieldstreet-is-becoming-willow-wealth

Here is some additional information regarding three new bond categories M* added on 10/31/2025.
Excerpted from an article written by Eric Jacobson from M* which I'm unable to find online.
"In that spirit, we recently broke out three new groups,
including the government mortgage-backed bond
category. The interest rate sensitivity of mortgages is
very sensitive to homeowner refinancings, which
can cause dedicated mortgage fund durations to
swing to extremes.
That sets mortgage portfolios apart from those
intentionally managing their rate sensitivity within
predictable ranges, often via a mix of US Treasuries,
government agency bonds, and government
agency-backed mortgages."
"By contrast, the new securitized bond–diversified
category comprises funds with a broader range of
securitized sectors, including agency, nonagency, and
commercial mortgages, asset-backed securities,
and collateralized loan obligations, for example. Most
had been mixed in with intermediate-term core
bond or core-plus bond funds based on their credit
quality and interest rate sensitivity, but their lack
of exposure to corporate and Treasury bonds often
made them outliers."
"Single-sector funds are less common in bondland
than in equities, but the popularity of ETFs as portfolio
building blocks has ushered in several devoted
to single securitized sectors. Roughly 60% of these
funds focus on CLOs, with the rest clustered
around commercial mortgages, and a few on ABS.
Risk was a prominent factor in deciding to break them
out into the new securitized bond–focused category.
Many have interest rate exposures consistent with
the ultrashort bond category, but their single-sector
design meant most hugged the edges of their
categories."