What am I missing? The only plain old regular vanilla Domestic stock fund I see is SPY.

@dryflower,
I track plenty of plain old regular vanilla domestic stock as well. They just didn't make the list for low risk stocks. Here are the large cap core funds that I track. I also track multi-cap, median, and small cap.
Regards,
Lynn
Name, Symbol, Rank, MaxDD, APR, Rtn 3 mon, Trend, Flow, Yield, SMA10
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, (SPY), 72.9, -19.5, 16.7, 3.9, 6, 4.7, 1.57, -1
Vanguard Large-Cap Index ETF, (VV), 67, -19.6, 18, 4.5, 6.3, -4.2, 1.56, -0.2
Schwab 1000 Index, (SNXFX), 66.8, -20.3, 17.6, 5.1, 6.7, 0.1, 1.57, -0.8
Fidelity US Sustainability Index, (FITLX), 66.4, -19.1, 17.3, 4.1, 6, 5.4, 1.11, -1.1
BlackRock iShares ESG Aware USA ETF, (ESGU), 66.1, -19.3, 19, 4.6, 6.5, 8.7, 1.34, 0.4
Schwab US Large-Cap ETF, (SCHX), 62.9, -20, 17.8, 4.8, 6.5, 0.8, 1.81, -0.5
Hartford Core Equity Y, (HGIYX), 60.7, -19.9, 18.3, 5.6, 6.2, 1.7, 0.79, -2.1
BlackRock MSCI KLD 400 Social ETF, (DSI), 59.3, -18.8, 18.5, 4.1, 6.1, 2.9, 1.28, 0.4
BlackRock USA Quality Factor ETF, (QUAL), 58.3, -19.4, 17.5, 4.9, 6.3, 15.4, 1.47, -1.4
Vanguard 500 Index Admiral, (VFIAX), 57.4, -19.6, 16.8, 3.9, 6, -8.9, 1.6, -1.1
Fidelity SAI US Large Cap Index, (FLCPX), 54.8, -19.7, 16.8, 3.9, 6, 7.9, 1.92, -1.1
BlackSwan Growth & Treasury Core ETF, (SWAN), 42.3, -5, 16.2, 0.8, 3.1, 0.4, 0.57, 5.1
T Rowe Price Dividend Growth, (PRDGX), 37.2, -18.8, 15.2, 5.8, 6.1, 0.5, 1.1, -3.6
Vanguard Growth & Income Inv, (VQNPX), 29, -20.4, 15.6, 3.6, 5.9, -17.9, 1.39, -1.4
Provident Trust Strategy, (PROVX), 19.1, -15.3, 16.6, 5.5, 6, -0.1, 0.45, 1
Fidelity Magellan, (FMAGX), 16.5, -16, 21.7, 0.6, 3.9, -0.6, 0.26, 5.8

All I can say is that the holdings came up fine for me with relatively recent versions of Firefox, Chrome, Edge, and IE, though pulling up the holdings failed on an older browser. I wasn't even logged in to M* with those newer browsers and I went to a fund that I'd never researched before (so it couldn't have been cached).
You could always go to the old "holdings" page - that is the same functionality, plus (it displays the top 25). That works on my old browser.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=FSMEX

The top ten holdings have been missing for the last few days. Very disappointing if this is a permanent change.

Maybe the holdings are for "premium" victims now.

Do you mean any other funds of funds, or funds in general?
You may remember the Strong Advisor funds of the 1990s and early 2000s, with their turnover ratios of
 60.3% (Small Cap Value, 2000),
 87.8% (Opportunity Fund, 2001),
 88.1% (International Core Fund, 2003),
 95.4% (Common Stock Fund, 2000),
116.1% (US Value Fund, 2001),
116.6% (US Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund, 2004),
174.2% (Utilities and Energy Fund, 2003),
184.5% (Technology Fund, 2003),
186.8% (Emerging Growth Fund, 2000),
199.4% (Growth and Income Fund, 2003),
221.6% (Large Company Core Fund, 2001),
234.1% (Balanced Fund, 2001),
268.5% (Blue Chip Fund, 2003),
269.3% (Large Cap Core Fund, 2002),
285.3% (Large Company Growth Fund, 2001),
399.8% (Growth Fund, 2001),
416.8% (Endeavor Fund, 2002),
420.4% (Endeavor Large Cap Fund, 2002),
437.3% (Select Fund, 2002),
468.7% (Large Cap Growth Fund, 2001),
501.7% (Discovery Fund, 2001),
605.7% (Focus Fund, 2001),
629.8% (Enterprise Fund, 2001),
658.7% (Growth 20 Fund, 2001),
683.7% (Mid Cap Growth Fund, 2000)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/723257/000119312505044665/dncsr.htm
Aside from such "believe it or not" figures, the ICI reports that turnover ratios have been trending downward. The ICI's 2020 Fact Book has a graph (Figure 3.7) showing this trend in the asset-weighted average turnover ratio of equity funds. There's a peak in 1987 a bit over 80% turnover, and another peak around 2000 at just under 80%. The current figure is 28%.
Still, some funds like Magellan (FMAGX) have turnover rates north of 100% today.
With respect to funds of funds, the M* premium screener reports 123 distinct funds of funds (about 12%) with turnover rates above 100%, including what seems to be a favorite here, Columbia Thermostat (CTFAX). That fund has a turnover ratio of 158%.

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.

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?

DIVO trades just like CII with a little less volatility, nice if you prefer an ETF over a CEF. Solid pick.

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.”

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.

@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.

"Now we are in a period of high debts and deficits, high valuations, aging workforce (deflationary), falling dollar (inflationary), and COVID. I choose to be more conservative now."
Well said, Lynn.
Here is what another poster on the M* discussion forum said recently that also kind of reflects my situation as a fairly conservative and retired investor: "I don't really need a lot more money - but I certainly don't want to lose a lot. I need to remind myself to err on the side of caution."
I am currently in the process of doing a year-end review of my portfolio and found that my equity exposure is only 20%. The 20 to 25% range seems to meet my comfort level at this point. My portfolio consists of only seven funds with each holding making up between 10 and 18% of the total value:
ARBIX
JBALX
PIMIX
TSIIX
TMSRX
VLAIX
VWINX
My YTD total return through November is 8.5%, with a standard deviation of 9.7%. So far, so good.
And, thanks, Lynn, for your significant contribution to this important topic, much appreciated.
Good luck,
Fred

I said "last try"; not last post, Lewis, but obviously your reading skills are on par with your reasoning skills. I had hoped that an actual discussion on merits, not ideology, might be possible, but apparently it isn't only one 'side' which is close-minded and intractable. It's noteworthy, I think, that I hadn't responded to YOU, but to David; as it was obvious that you had no interest in undertaking any actual THINKING; only in talking points. I still hold out SOME hope that David is willing to look beyond any personal prejudices he might have, but I'm certainly done wrestling in the mud with YOU. Have a nice life interacting only with like-minded people.
Btw other readers (if there are any at this point), if Biden can actually reverse decades of anti-fission sentiment, then that might give his 15-year goal of 'clean energy production' a chance of being realized. I'm not sure that's the BEST solution, or that it has even a REMOTE chance of occurring, but it probably is the only way it COULD happen. MY preconception is that this is NOT going to be among the solutions being considered, but maybe I'll be proven wrong; we'll see. Whether Biden does or doesn't support that approach, I think it's dead in the water politically; probably on both sides of the aisle.
Geothermal has definite possibilities from a technical standpoint, if only to bleed energy from that supervolcano we have sitting under Yosemite before it eventually erupts and kills all of us. The problem is that it is going to take time and money, and from the perspective of our representatives, it's all downside and no upside FOR THEM. Someone ELSE, many years down the line will get the credit, and they'll only get flack over the cost! So they're going to go for the quick, politically-correct 'fix'; if anything. If it can't be completed during THEIR term, it's off the board... I know, cynical much?

@Mav123,

Thank you for sharing. 25% in equities, wow. I always thought even retirees should have more to make sure funds lasts. I'm in my early 40s. Curious, what is the rate of return for the overall portfolio if only 25% in equities?

Bond and conservative funds have made roughly 8% YTD will little risk because interest rates have fallen, compared to the S&P 500 with 14% YTD, but a maximum drawdown of 20%. Stock valuations are very high now. The 25% is Benjamin Graham's lower limit on stock allocation when the markets are fully priced. This is similar to COTZX's strategy of decreasing allocations as the markets become fully valued. TMSRX's strategy is to make 6% plus inflation regardless of market direction.
My December article shows that following periods of high valuations over long periods of time (decades), conservative portfolios outperform aggressive portfolios.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2020/12/enoughin-the-coming-lost-decade/
When I was your age in the early 1990's I was 100% stocks, but times have changed. The secular bear market of the 1960's and 1970's was followed by the secular bull market of the 1980's and 1990's. You could not go wrong in stocks until the market hit the wall in 1999. Now we are in a period of high debts and deficits, high valuations, aging workforce (deflationary), falling dollar (inflationary), and COVID. I choose to be more conservative now.
Best wishes in your investing.

Thanks @bee, the first article in particular was very informative for me. I've wondered about sequence of return risk from a different perspective historically and that is if you bought the idea that small value outperforms in the long-term and started investing for your kids in 2009, you might even be right overall but just not if you started at a point in time where you'd give up more than 250 basis points annually over the first 12 years of your investment life.
Does anyone have any ideas how to manage sequence of return risk for an 18 year-old?