It seems that M* has stopped providing the details for its backward-looking, performance-driven *-ratings on the website. Only the overall *-rating is now provided, not the details for 3-yr, 5-yr, 10-yr.
A less known fact is that newer funds get their first *-ratings as soon as they cross the 3-yr mark (until they become 5-year old), and that becomes their overall ratings too. But for the older funds, the overall rating is a weighted average of 3-year (20% weight), 5-year (30%), 10- year (50%) ratings; for funds with 5-10 year histories, the weights are 3-year (40%), 5-year (60%). So, older funds may have a more difficult time maintaining high overall ratings (but many good funds can do that).

There's no shortage of etf's advertising their momentum strategies.

With 34 ETFs traded on the U.S. markets, Momentum ETFs have total assets under management of $16.43B. The average expense ratio is 0.60%. Momentum ETFs can be found in the following asset classes:
Equity
Asset Allocation
The largest Momentum ETF is the iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF MTUM with $8.15B in assets. In the last trailing year, the best-performing Momentum ETF was QQH at 35.68%. The most recent ETF launched in the Momentum space was the ProShares NASDAQ-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF QQQA on 05/18/21.

What am I missing in this story?

The WSJ today reports that "557 stocks stocks listed on US exchanges were trading below $1 a share, up from fewer than a dozen in early 2021" (Alexander Osipovich, "Hundreds of NASDAQ stocks have fallen below $1," WSJ, 12/4/2023). Of those, 464 are NASDAQ stocks. A total of 583 NASDAQ stocks are listed as "non-compliant" with one listing requirement or another. One-sixth of NASDAQ stocks are at risk of being delisted. The article suggests that the SPAC boom in 2020 brought to market a bunch of stocks that should never have seen the light of day.
S. Ghon Rhee of the U of Hawaii notes that such stocks are "much more vulnerable to catastrophic losses" and that unwary investors "could have their entire investment wiped out."
Being de-listed means back to the speculative realm of penny stocks and pink sheets, a fate that those companies are struggling to avoid.
All of which is masked by the obsession with The Magnificent Seven.
For what interest it holds, David

@WABAC, not so for SPGP. ETFdb.com, ETF.com, M* AND Invesco/VZ say that it follows S&P MC 400 GARP index (note its name too). Moreover, ETF.com says,
"Prior to June 24, 2019, the fund tracked a Russell pure growth index (perhaps the opposite of GARP in growth context) under a different name and ticker (PXLG)."
Invesco has even older history,
"On May 22, 2015, at the close of markets, changes to the Fund's name, investment objective, investment policy, investment strategies, Index and index provider were made. Frank Russell Company replaced Research Affiliates, LLC as the index provider for the Fund. The Index name changed from RAFI Fundamental Large Growth Index to Russell Top 200 Pure Growth Index. The Fund name changed from PowerShares Fundamental Pure Large Growth Portfolio to PowerShares Russell Top 200 Pure Growth Portfolio."

Professor Snowball wrote an article about PRCFX in the December MFO issue.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2023/12/launch-alert-t-rowe-price-capital-appreciation-income-fund/

A minor nitpick ... Prof. Snowball writes that PRWCX is " (b) closed tight." Elsewhere (in discussing closed funds) he has noted that there are ways to get into some of these funds. Specifically, that T. Rowe Price Summit Select investors (those with over $250K at TRP) have access to PRWCX. And existing investors can add to their accounts.
In contrast, TREMX is closed really tight.

The fund is currently closed to all purchases from new and existing shareholders. Even investors who already hold shares of the fund either directly with T. Rowe Price or through a retirement plan or financial intermediary may no longer purchase additional shares.

Prospectus
Now that's what I call a hard close. Weird timing, too.
Had it closed in early 2022 around the time the Ukraine war began and it lost 86% of its value in three weeks, that might have made sense. Closing it a year later, and so severely, doesn't. No significant in/outflows since mid 2022.
Closure announcement, Feb 17, 2023.

What I found odd was not the fees (they're pretty well known) but the claim that the brokerage fee ($49.95) went to the fund family.
Fidelity and Schwab and others get paid percentage fees by fund families (including lesser fees by TF fund families) to hold shares and service them. If brokerages hold those shares for too short a period of time, they lose money on the services (buy/sell/report). I assumed and still assume that the brokerages hold onto their short term redemption fees in part to cover this expense and in part to make an additional profit.
None of that makes sense if the brokerages don't get the fee.
I asked Fidelity to confirm that there was no fee for buying back shares shortly after selling. There is no way to test this without actually trading. I could put in the test sale (first line in your comment), but would not be able to put in a post-sale test buy without having first actually executed the previous test sale.

At both Fido and Schwab, the mutual fund sell order screen will indicate if there are any ST trading fees, and even may indicate how many shares are available for NTF.
I thought that the funds must state any ST fees, as some VG funds do. Anything else may be just between the fund firm and brokerage.
The NTF platform charges are steep, 25-50 bps, offered as take-it-or-leave it basis except for the biggest firms (they even apply to brokerage CDs). For example, Fido and BlackRock/BLK have a deal for a long time for cross-selling/promo of funds. I think that Schwab and RA also some deal for a few exclusive RAFI funds.

Fidelity, like many other brokerages, imposes a trading fee when you redeem (sell) fund shares that you have held for fewer than some (broker-specified) number of days. For Fidelity, that period is 60 days.
That seems pretty straightforward - this is a fee imposed by and paid to the brokerage for its service in processing the trades.
I just spoke with a Fidelity private client rep who said that this is a fee that Fidelity merely passes through to the brokerage. In this worldview, it is the NTF funds that are waiving the transaction fee. So if you don't hold those shares long enough then it is the fund company revoking that waiver. And the short term fee collected is then passed through to the fund company. It's not a Fidelity fee.
I've never seen or heard this before. It's an odd view, considering that Fidelity lists this fee under brokerage commissions:
https://www.fidelity.com/trading/commissions-margin-rates
Further (https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/all-mutual-funds/fees),

Short-term trading fee: Fidelity charges a short-term trading fee each time you sell or exchange shares of a FundsNetwork NTF fund held less than 60 days. This fee does not apply to [Fidelity funds, TF funds, etc.] In addition, Fidelity reserves the right to exempt other funds from this fee, such as funds designed to achieve their stated objective on a short-term basis.
Keep in mind that the short-term trading fee charged by Fidelity on FundsNetwork NTF funds is different and separate from a short-term redemption fee assessed by the fund itself.

According to the rep, a fund may have its own fee (as underlined above) and it may also "revoke" its "waiver" of a $49.95 fee. I called back, read the text above to the rep, and he reiterated this.
All I originally called to ask was to confirm that there was no short term fee imposed if one sold NTF shares and then immediately repurchased them. (His first response was to launch into tax implications.)
No wonder people get so confused with these fees.

Lots of info on GARP indexes on S&P website...for large/mid/small
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/dividends-factors/sp-500-garp-index/#overview
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/dividends-factors/sp-midcap-400-garp-index/#overview
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/dividends-factors/sp-smallcap-600-garp-index/#overview

The intermediate term, 5-7 years, is the sweet spot. Those who bought long bonds when they were down double digits, they have since been rewarded handsomely. Ironically junk bonds are out-performing treasuries so far. If and when the economy turns downward, this trend will reverse quickly.
Another surprise is that the dollar-hedged BNDX and global bond funds are way ahead of BND this year.
Edits. I went back to read @davidsherman’ “No Fat Pitches” as a reality check. Thus I move slow and incrementally.

@baseball_fan, I am not a macro economist and therefore not best suited to answer any of these very valid questions you ask. I am sure there are others on the forum with good skills. I try to approach a lot of such questions from the perspective : Who is the best person I know and trust in this specific area and what are they doing? In response to that inquiry, two people come to mind. The berkshire hathaway portfolio (buffett) was still 160$ billion in short-term t-bills as of quarter end September. We dont know of any changes this quarter though. Second, @davidsherman wrote in his quarterly "No fat pitches" that the long end of the bond market was neither a great long nor a great short.
People like Bill Gross have been VERY right this year, after having lost all public credibility last decade. I cannot trust someone who is going to play loud music at 2 am to piss off their neighbor. He lost me at hello
Ultimately we do know trading around is not bet helpful. I think it was @ybb who very wisely pointed out to me that the 5 year maturity captured a lot of the bond market return without a lot of its volatility.
That still seems thoughtful.
I am impressed with @junkster and a few others who shrewdly bought the low in bonds and I know some commentators who did the same in stocks. It’s very exciting when it falls in place and works.

The fund prospectus is available on the TRP website. Here's a link.
https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/m_summary.asp?doctype=pros&clientid=trowepll&fundid=77954M402

It is a valid strategy and the term was popular for a while.
Now, there are 2 ETFs with GARP in their names - SP500 GARP SPGP and SP MC 400 GARP GRPM. Of course the ERs are higher than the regular SP500 or SP MC 400 funds.

GRPM was an equal-weight 400 fund until the last six months, or so. So not much track record on the new strategy. The stats at M* seem to be from the previous flavor. And M* doesn't seem to note the recent change. But I have missed stuff like that before.

It is a valid strategy and the term was popular for a while.
Now, there are 2 ETFs with GARP in their names - SP500 GARP SPGP and SP MC 400 GARP GRPM. Of course the ERs are higher than the regular SP500 or SP MC 400 funds.

Hi Gents- and Happy Holidays!!!- anybody interested or own GARP ETF?? Im tempted to be frank- Any thoughts woulkd be appreciated-I was going to go with plain vanilla S and P 500 but now not so sure- hmmm- is this strategy of Garp susstainable? I find it interesting and thanks in advance

The Week in Charts (12/03/23)
The most important charts and themes in markets, including...
00:00 Intro
00:11 A November to Remember (Markets)
05:05 180 Shift in Sentiment (Sentiment)
08:30 Dow at New Highs (Dow 30)
10:04 The Recession That Never Came (Economy)
11:51 The Deep Freeze in Housing (Housing Market)
16:23 More Affordable Rents (Rental Market)
20:00 A March Rate Cut? (Fed)
24:48 They Got the Message (Money Supply)
26:32 A Record Day in Travel (Good News)
Video
Blog

There is a 2022 MFO thread for Parnassus Value Equity.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/59048

I started a huge position several months ago in CBYYX and emailed someone on this thread. Finder did an excellent job presenting this data already. I found https://www.artemis.bm/ as well and used it as my guide. On that site, you can find an explanation of most of the holdings. Example: Stabilitas is CBYYX biggest holding see this=https://www.artemis.bm/deal-directory/stabilitas-re-ltd-series-2023-1/
There were 2 other great funds I found and I have played with 2 out of 3.
There is no fun in posting about bonds, trades, and what I see anymore because of several posters as I have done for years. For more see (link).
Example from 2020 (https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/55299/bond-mutual-funds-analysis-act-2/p2). You can see when I sold and bought.
Never in my life, have I bought CDs or treasuries because trading bond funds is a lot better and this year it was great too.
BTW, trading HY munis funds since 2022 made me a lot of money. I also explained how I did it (hint: a simple T/A is one of my major signals).
As usual, a trader always sits by the exit because market conditions keep changing.

@sma3 (Dr) knows the best. But if you take Paxlovid, be ready for the worst mouth-taste. But it would be only for 5 days.

Franklin Templeton Funds
Undated dollars/share range estimates (as opposed to % NAV) for 2023 are presented on the individual fund pages under "Distributions&Tax".
These are significantly different from the cap gains estimate table (in percentages) given above. I can't say which is better.
For example, for FRAAX, the table estimate (9/29/23) is 0% STG, 8.4% LTG. The price/share then was $47.37, so this works out to $3.98/share LTG. (Even at the current price of $52.52, that's "just" $4.41/share.)
But the fund page gives much higher estimates per share of:
$5.725-$6.297 (LTG) plus $0.043 - $0.053 (STG).
https://www.franklintempleton.com/investments/options/mutual-funds/products/4462/Z/franklin-growth-opportunities-fund/FRAAX#distributions
List of family funds is here (search by ticker is simple):
https://www.franklintempleton.com/investments/options/mutual-funds