This entertaining to say the least. Didn't Bruce also tank on Wash Mutual? As I remember he lost millions but refused to concede.
Joins a long list of mangers who start believing themselves to be omnificent and won't listen to reason or sensible portfolio management principles
Add to the list of star funds that crash SEQUX and valaent pharm
LLPFX Disappointing for years. Now top position good old Century Link "These results call to mind other cases in which the fund's highest-conviction holdings have not worked out, such as with Dell DELL and Chesapeake Energy CHK." M*
The bottom line is beware concentrated portfolios, especially when all the stocks are in the same general sector or type of security.
I would be very careful of any fund with a single position larger than 3 to 5%
FAIRX has three stocks now
Why do you need an ER of 1 plus % and dozens of analysts to track 15 positions?

Fell for both CGMFX and FAIRX. Did okay on CGMFX; got out of FAIRX too late to have realized net gains beyond what a decent bond fund would have given me over the same period.
Kick myself a bit on FAIRX because I knew I wasn't comfortable with the way Bruce was getting waaaay too overexposed, as well as some of his bizarre personnel decisions. He was spending a bit too much time drinking his own bathwater, and I ultimately got too nervous and XFER'd out.
Now, as a rule, I never let such "moonshot" active funds be more than 7.5% of my total portfolio.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/313212/000174177320003678/c497.htm
497 1 c497.htm
T. Rowe Price International Discovery Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated December 15, 2020
In section 1, the portfolio manager table under “Management” is supplemented as follows:
Effective January 1, 2021, Mr. Thomson will step down as a portfolio manager and Cochair of the fund’s Investment Advisory Committee. Mr. Griffiths will remain as portfolio manager and Chair of the fund’s Investment Advisory Committee.
In section 2, the disclosure under “Portfolio Management” is supplemented as follows:
Effective January 1, 2021, Mr. Thomson will step down as a portfolio manager and Cochair of the fund’s Investment Advisory Committee. Mr. Griffiths will remain as portfolio manager and Chair of the fund’s Investment Advisory Committee.
The date of this supplement is December 21, 2020.
F38-041 12/21/20

I haven't heard much about Ken Heebner in years.
He was a real "cowboy" investment manager back in the day.
The trailing returns for the CGM Focus Fund occupy the bottom percentile (100) in the Large Blend category for the 1,3,5,10, and 15 year periods ending 12-18-2020.
The fund's standard deviation is also considerably higher than that of its category peers.

From M* support
“Hope you are doing well.
I apologize for the wrong choice of words.
What I meant was that the issue you highlighted as effected all Morningstar users.
As informed this is been taken has a high priority case .
Best regards,”

Timely support for Morningstar products is seriously lacking.
I use their Portfolio X-Ray Tool via my public library system.
The following email was sent to Morningstar support on November 15:
Access to Morningstar Investment Research Center is provided by KCLS.
After holdings are added to Instant X-Ray, the Overview screen is displayed which is normal behavior.
However, the other screen views (Interpreter, Intersection, Asset Class, etc.) are inaccessible.
A pop-up window is displayed to 'Create your account' when clicking these tabs.
I have used Instant X-Ray via KCLS for years and first noticed this issue approximately 2 weeks ago.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Morningstar support response:
I hope all is well. The X-Ray tool is broken.
The login prompt you get when you are using the X-Ray tool is glitch.
We do not have a timeline for fixing this. The products team is hoping before the end of the year. We will reach out to all libraries once this is resolved. Thanks, for your patience and I apologize for the inconvenience.

Using the same data source, compare DODFX's "subpar" - er, miserable - performance to that of another "Gold" rated fund Vanguard Intl Growth:
YTD + 49.8%, 3 YRS +20.2%, 5 YRS +19.4%
Yowza! Dramatically different returns for both "Gold" funds in the same M* category.
"Gold" rated apples are not all "gold."

Props to Miller: He got the call right. But I think the problem with his funds isn’t his financial acumen, which I believe he has, but a structural one. One great John Bogle saying is “Strategy follows structure.” The design of an investment product influences its manager’s strategy. What that means in this case is a high fee fund requires a money manager to take on more risks to beat its benchmark and Miller’s funds have always been high fee. The fee acts as a hurdle the manager must overcome before breaking even with the no fee S&P 500 or now no fee index funds. In Miller’s case his style is to concentrate his portfolio in an eclectic mix of high risk stocks— deep value ones everyone hates and market tech darlings most value managers misunderstand. This strategy works well in bull markets and is like a leveraged play on a strong or recovering economy, but it works terribly in most bear markets and is like a leveraged play on the downside. This could be fine if most investors understood his style, but investors tend to chase performance, buying at the top and selling at the bottom. Concentration only tends to work for most investors in high quality stocks that outperform on the downside and hold their own on the upside, not low quality deep value stocks or small caps that get hammered in sell offs and cause fund investors to panic. Miller would in this regard probably be better off running a hedge fund for sophisticated investors with the wealth and understanding to ride out the very rough patches than a mutual fund for ordinary folk.

Thank you for the education. To confirm, I took the average of the growth (+37.23%) and Value (+25.82%) for 2019 and get an average of +31.5%, which equals the return of the 500 index.

The S&P 500 is designed by committee to be "representative" of the US market. So it is not a collection of the 500 largest companies, though it resembles that list.
Given that the objective of the S&P Committee is to represent the market, to the extent that it meets that objective, your question could be rephrased: is today's market growthy (are most companies, where "most" means more than 50%, growth companies)? Hard to disagree with that.
My point was just that by design, growth index + value index = total index; further, the partitioning is effectively 50/50 so one gets little insight by seeing how many stocks fall where.
Another way to address (ore evade) your question is: essentially by definition cap weighted indexes are (slightly) growth oriented, since they add more weight to companies that have grown faster.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/967411/is-market-cap-weighting-a-momentum-strategy-in-disguise

Anyone who wants to condemn today’s democrats because southern slaveholders were democrats 150 years ago is not really a serious person.

@msf - I've always thought of the S&P 500 as a stock market index that tracks the stocks of the largest 500 U.S. companies. Today's market environment does not lead me to believe that the current list is made up of a 50-50 split growth v. value. You?

@Rbrt - not necessarily would I overweight. Have that plan in the works ahead of time and stick to it. If it doesn't work out then decide if you need a new plan. The whole exercise is meant to take your biases, or the markets, out of the equation. Everything else is either timing or guesswork which may be the same. Just my opinion.
Edited to add: For the record I am primarily a dividend growth investor. I do not own a S&P 500 fund. My portfolio is roughly 50% individual equities, 25% Pimco bond CEF's and 25% assorted other holdings. While this portfolio has and continues to provide more monthly income than I need it really hasn't provided and semblance of massive growth. In the end my comments on the S&P business do not reflect things that I have done.

I see:
VIFAX. VIGAX. VUVLX
M CAP 161.b 223. 50.4
PE. 27.6. 42.4. 16.7
PB. 3.8. 9.2. 2.0
ROE. 19.6. 21.1. 13.0
Also, if you put 10k in growth & 10k in value 3 years ago, you’d be 64% growth & 36% value now. So you would rebalance - but if investing today, would you overweight value? By how much?

For the top 10 holdings in VIFAX, I see 23.1% growth and 5.1% value. Don't think I'll go through all 509 names tonight.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/887210/000110465920137326/tm2038055d13_497.htm
497 1 tm2038055d13_497.htm 497
ABERDEEN INVESTMENT FUNDS
Aberdeen International Sustainable Leaders Fund
(formerly, Aberdeen Select 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 Select International Equity Fund changed its name to the Aberdeen International Sustainable Leaders Fund and changed its principal investment strategies 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 International Sustainable Leaders Fund is currently offered pursuant to the December 2020 Prospectus and SAI. All references to, and information with respect to, the Aberdeen Select 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.

So does anyone know the current percentage by market cap that is growth? (In the S&P500)

You can look at - https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/portfolio/vigax
Compared to - https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/portfolio/vuvlx
And - https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/portfolio/vfiax
And tell us what you find.

"As of Dec. 1st DODFX results:
YTD -{3.0%}, 3 years -{0.1%}, 5 years +4.5%. Negative returns for 3 years is "Gold?"!
"Compare that blow out performance to the Category (Foreign Stock Funds):
YTD +7.1%, 3years +3.7%, 5 years +7.3%"
Compare that to the Category (Foreign Large Value Funds):
YTD -{4.1%}, 3 years -{0.7%}, 5 years +3.8%
(My data are from M*'s performance page for the fund, as of month end Nov. 30th. The category performance was calculated by taking the fund's performance and subtracting its category outperformance as given on that page.)
Morningstar stars are given for (risk adjusted) past performance. Gold (and other medal) ratings concern prospective performance. While past performance informs, "past performance does not guarantee future results."
If you want to say that FLV has done lousy over the three years, all well and good. However, medal ratings are relative to peers, and the fund does perform well relative to its peers. At least on an absolute (not risk adjusted) basis.

DODFX is a perfect example of why one should ignore M* recs. Lousy picks. DODFX still has as of today M* "Gold" status. I can think of another color - it ain't shiny metal.
As of Dec. 1st DODFX results:
YTD -{3.0%}, 3 years -{0.1%}, 5 years +4.5%. Negative returns for 3 years is "Gold?"!
Compare that blow out performance to the Category (Foreign Stock Funds):
YTD +7.1%, 3years +3.7%, 5 years +7.3%
Translated: avoid, its a bum fund, you lost money for years. Of course, your mileage may differ should you choose to fork over hard earned cash today. Much better options elsewhere...Vanguard Intl Growth or Fidelity Intl Discovery perhaps?

So does anyone know the current percentage by market cap that is growth? (In the S&P500)

If I were to own a S&P 500 fund I would be inclined to split it into a growth index and a value index and rebalance as necessary or so inclined.