https://finance.yahoo.com/news/irs-bitcoin-and-virtual-currency-tax-form-193503386.html
I own zero "crypto " currency, do you ?
Stay Safe, Derf

"Donut'' day @ TMSRX , otherwise my 2 position were off 2.58 %.
Stay Safe, Derf

IMHO, if one of these alt funds did produce decent returns with limited volatility, one of 2 things would happen: the minimum investment would suddenly increase to 5 or 10 million to prevent too much cash coming in, or the fund manager would leave the fund company and set up his own hedge fund based in Bermuda to maximize his income !

@wxman123
Here is the answer: pay businesses to be closed:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/15/false-choice-between-economy-containing-virus/

I can tell you have a “PHD” @BenWP :)
(PHD = “pile it higher and deeper”)
Kidding aside - It’s a fascinating fund. I’ve held it from the start. But I still haven’t figured out how the 5 different managers keep from shooting one another. TRP tried a 2-manager approach with PRWCX 10-15 years back and it didn’t last long.

Nothin.
Unsure about travel in 2021. That’s the biggest discretionary expense. So, like 2020, next year might require little drawdown from investments. That argues for staying the course rather than building cash. Somehow wish it were other. (But have reduced spec positions while waiting for the next 25-30% selloff).
Nice bounce today across the boards. DJI is up 300 in early afternoon - above the 30,000 mark.
Energy’s strong with Brent over $50 and NYMX close behind.
And a pop of about $25 for gold, with miners up a couple percent today.
I remain convinced a lot of the action is of “the elephant chasing his tail” variety, with folks investing $$ they’d have spent on things without the Covid related restrictions. But “don’t fight the tape” (or do so at your own peril).
In the meantime .... What’s not to like?
At this point I view bonds as the wastewater of the investment plumbing infrastructure. They still serve some purpose - but don’t expect them to contribute to your prosperity.

Interesting it so outperforms QQQ.
From 2.5y ago; author Kam's writeup is interesting, sort of:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2018/06/01/the-6-greatest-mutual-fund-managers-of-the-last-decade-to-use-now/?sh=4d83fd94e678
(Turns out Kam died a year-plus ago.)

You might be surprised at how many fund of funds exist in the 30/50 space. Far more than you might think.

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

Too bad that link isn't their default view anymore.
It's a good idea to update browsers anyway since Flash is dead. And I don't mean The Scarlet Speedster.
But there does seem to be a trend that M* is just less friendly to regular investors that paid the bill when they were growing up. Maybe they think the real money going forward is in selling their index products.
BTW. FSMEX has been great for me. I am not buying anymore at it's current valuations. I might add it, or a similar ETF to my wife's IRA in days to come. It's pretty much medical care as a utility.

Wow. A focused fund ("normally hold[s] a core position of between 20 and 30 common stocks") no less.
Prospectus
Gives a whole new meaning to "investing with conviction."
"Portfolio turnover is greater than most funds due to the investment style of the Fund."
Annual Statement

When it comes to allocation, it is meant to be equally allocated to the underlying funds...

Source? De facto ≠ de jure
Prospectus:

Investment Objective
The fund seeks long-term growth of capital.
----
Principal Investment Strategies
Normally investing assets in a combination of five Fidelity ® funds, each of which normally invests in equity securities of companies that represent a disruptive theme.

• Fidelity ® Disruptive Automation Fund ...
  
• Fidelity ® Disruptive Communications Fund ...
  
• Fidelity ® Disruptive Finance Fund ...
  
• Fidelity ® Disruptive Medicine Fund ...
  
• Fidelity ® Disruptive Technology Fund ...

Fidelity’s disruptive strategies seek to identify innovative developments ...

That's the complete description of how this fund operates in the statutory prospectus.
Just "a combination" of funds, not an equal combination.

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

I'm not sure I understand your concern on the team and allocation. My understanding is the "team" environment is given the multi-fund structure. When it comes to allocation, it is meant to be equally allocated to the underlying funds... The work to accomplish that is deminimis as it would only require periodic rebalancing...

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.