Will keep this thread ...
All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site through August 2021, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, Dashboard of Launch Alerts, Portfolios, Quick Search, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.

https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Table-7.png
One of the funds in the portfolio is the Fidelity Freedom 2020 portfolio, FFFDX. Why does it make sense to include in the portfolio a 'target date' fund that for many years in the 'backtest' had an evolving (with time) asset allocation that was different from the current allocation?
Think - for example - that inclusion of a 'target date' fund might make more sense if the specific target date (i.e., 2020 for FFFDX) was adjusted to a future year, rather than a year in the past ... right?

Hey guys,
Long time listener, first time caller.
Does anyone have experience with any of these funds that tend to take more concentrated, B&H positions in high ROIC companies with decent growth projections? I’m a big believer in ROIC being the primary quality metric and it doesn’t get a lot of attention for some reason.
They have higher expense ratios, up to 1.4% for Edgewood for example. But they appear to have superior downward capture ratios that more than make up for their higher costs over a longer investment horizon. OTOH, growth has also had a hell of a run over the past decade, so that could have influenced the risk metrics somewhat. Everything goes in cycles.
Seems like these would be on the opposite end of the spectrum from indexing and give you some good offense with some decent defense.
Thank you for your comments in advance
Grif

It's a little difficult to divine intent in a single sentence, but what the heck ... And I'll try to relate this to M*'s issues with ALAAX.
I take Ed's comment to be a focused version of: if you find $1 worth of assets selling at 80¢, buy it. Here, if you can buy a real asset (e.g. a pipeline) for less than its replacement cost, go for it. I regard the part about income as a way to measure the intrinsic value of the asset.
Disregarding salvage value, you're buying something which will have a final value of zero. Its value is in the income (rent) it can generate. If the present value of that income stream is not better than the price, I wouldn't buy it, even if the price is less than the cost to replace it. Note also that while the replacement may cost more than an existing pipeline, it will also have a longer lifetime, hence a longer income stream. It's not quite as simple as comparing one cost to another.
How does all this relate to ALAAX? M*'s analysis and the objective star ratings point to ALAAX overpaying for the value it is receiving. True, it is generating a lot of income. But for that, it is investing in higher risk holdings and as hank noted poorer performing funds that eat significantly into the total return.
It's like paying up for a premium bond to get a higher income stream. For example, the 10 year treasury yield is currently around 1.3%. In Fidelity's inventory, I find a 10 year note maturing 5/15/31, offered at 103, with 1.625% coupons. That's a fair price; its YTM is just under 1.3%.
One would be willing to pay a bit above par (here, 103) to get that higher income stream so long as the total returns were comparable. But there's a limit. One wouldn't overpay, say 105, just to get that higher income stream.
M*'s analysis says that Invesco has been optimizing the portfolio for total return, and then overpaying to increase the income. Since star ratings reflect total return, and total return is below what it "should" be, the star ratings are naturally lower.
(Side note: try comparing ALAAX to PRSIX; they each have 55% in fixed income and cash, with the remainder in equities and "other". PRSIX targets total return and doesn't overpay for income.)
Getting back to pipelines: if you can generate that higher income without overpaying for it, and without running the risk of losing out to newer, cheaper pipelines, then they're worth considering.

It has been said - for example, by the NYTimes' editorial board - that politicians pick their voters, and NOT the other way around.
Believe that the same may be true with Vanguard. In much the same way that politicians - via gerrymandering - pick their voters, it would appear that Vanguard is picking its customers through the delivery of poor customer service.
If you have a problem with the provided service levels, please (says Vanguard) take your business elsewhere. (And having done so, if you want to invest in Vanguard ETFs or funds with another broker, even better, since this drives Vanguard's asset levels up with no incremental costs to Vanguard.)
Note: For those unable to access the NYT, below is a link - no paywall, I think - to a similar article that describes how gerrymandering works. If that doesn't work for you, including the wiki entry for gerrymandering.
Finally, there are many different meanings for the word 'service', a few of which are somewhat profane. These are described, quite politely, at this link here. See noun #10, and verb (d).
Politicians Choosing Their Voters, Carter Hanson, 06-22-2020
https://chanson7908.medium.com/politicians-choosing-their-voters-119828fec2d
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

You know that expression about old dogs and new tricks? I tend to stick with M*'s premium screener (free with the legacy Roth I keep at T. Rowe Price and almost never trade).
A relatively simple screen there:
5* rating
Style box = small (cap)
Category = International Equity
Category != World small/mid stock
This returns four share classes: HAISX / HIISX, WIGTX, and ADVLX
As it turns out, this is simple enough that one can get similar results with M*'s basic screener with three separate screens:
5* rating
Category = Foreign small/mid value
5* rating
Category = Foreign small/mid blend
5* rating
Category = Foreign small/mid growth
On the portfolio view of the results, sort on market cap, and look at anything under $2B.
The basic screen for sm/mid foreign value funds returns the Harbor shares and QUSOX / QUSIX. The latter (institutional class) can be purchased (TF) with a $2500 min at Schwab. Its performance comes within a hair's breadth of HAISX, 47.64% vs 47.75% cumulative from 5/23/19 to the present. QUSIX holds no companies larger than midcap (very similar to HAISX, even slightly fewer midcaps and slightly more microcaps). But QUSIX does have a tad more volatility. Here's PV's comparison.
The screen for sm/mid foreign blend funds returns ADVLX and FISMX. (ADVLX was reclassified to blend from growth in 2021.) FISMX's performance misses by slightly more: 45.35% vs 47.75% cumulative from 5/23/19. It's tilted a bit more toward mid cap, with 8% in large caps. Aside from that, its cap distribution is little different from HAISX's, with 44% in small & microcap vs 46% for HAISX. Here's PV's head to head comparison.
The screen for sm/mid foreign growth funds just returns WIGTX (and funds which land in the midcap range).
This all just goes to show that tweaking screens slightly, or using screeners with different choices of criteria can get you different results.

The Professor may have been looking at Lipper, which classifies WIGTX as a global small/mid cap fund. M* currently classifies its portfolio as substantially all foreign, and the fund itself as foreign small/mid growth. But with a 176% turnover rate, who knows what it looked like six months ago? I haven't gone back to check.
ADVLX has also outperformed HAISX since 5/23/2019, albeit not by nearly as much and with a tailwind (being a growth fund). Both Lipper and M* classify it as a foreign small/mid cap fund. Just 1/40th of its portfolio contains large cap companies (HAISX has none), while it has more microcaps (6%) than HAISX (1%). In short, they're both small cap funds.
In contrast, OAKEX is a midcap fund, with 5/8 of its portfolio in midcaps, and just 1/5 in smaller companies, none of those being microcaps.
Portfolio visualizer comparison of the three funds
With regard to M*'s robotic rating, it's just that. IMHO a work in progress that isn't worth paying any attention to, at least yet. Also, the negative rating is a machine's "opinion" for the whole five years the fund has been around, not just the last 2.5 years.

100 bps = 1.00%
1 bp = 0.01%
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/what-basis-point-bps/

Excuse the delay - so in the CNBC interview he says he has cut equity investment about 2%. Basically, no change, he is only saying he’s not finding value in value. That’s what charts like this would indicate:
https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FPURX,VWENX,VBAIX,FPACX,DODBX,JABAX,JAGIX,OAKBX,PRWCX

This is a very interesting fund. September commentaries say: ...".over the past 2.5 years, the period roughly corresponding to Cedar Street’s management of the fund, it has been the best performing international small cap fund in existence."
On the other hand, M* gives them 5 stars but Negative rating. It is quite possible that M* gives negative ratings without full understanding of the funds. But, if I am not mistaken, Oakmark International Small Cap beats Harbor International Small Cap for the last 3 years, 2.5 years, and 1 year. And for the last 3 years WIGTX decimated both of these funds.

@hank : A fund of funds made up from Invesco funds . 19 holdings. Distribution of $.03 /month.

@mcmarasco, "What do you feel is an appropriate honeymoon?" That was my question too. It seems investors already give him an overwhelmingly good grade because half of the $5B AUM came in as net inflows just in 2021. May be the fund's 2021 performance would have been even better without those inflows. With that type of inflows and high turnover ratio, I think he can implement his strategy without triggering too much per share year end cap gain distributions. But it may be sensible to not buy into potential YE cap gain distributions, as you point out.

While younger funds, I would also look at BIAVX ( investor class of BLVAX which has $100,000 minimum ) CILGX
Both BLVAX and CILGX are GOs
All have higher Martin ratios and lower UI either over their shorter life ( BLVAX CILGX) or a comparable period to SVFAX

One I’m messing with just a bit but am reluctant to mention: ALAAX.
What is it? An income producing fund with about 50% in bonds, 30% in equities, 5% cash and 15% “other”. (The “other” likely includes REITS, commodities, convertibles and a few short positions.)
Goal? To provide income greater than what bonds alone can produce, using dividend paying stocks inside that 30% component.
Fee: .76% due to a fee wavier. Lower than otherwise, but still too high IMO.
What I like: Seems to have outdistanced RPSIX and other multi-asset income funds over longer periods by 2 or 3 percentage points, albeit with more risk. A decent supplement to my mostly conservative bond bunds.
What I don’t like: In addition to the .76% fee, everybody seems to hate this fund. M* rates it 2 / 5. Lipper has it in the bottom 20% on performance (but higher on cap preservation). Max Funds gives it something like a 35% (poor) rating. Also, a few of the underlying funds stink - including some of the aggressive bond bunds that blew-up on Oppenheimer in 2008.
PS - I like the concept and have searched for an ETF with lower fees that resembles this. But haven’t come across anything. I still have some $$ directly at Invesco which helps explain how I stumbled on this one.

I found the most sobering analysis focused on the jobs report with it's huge miss of expected payroll ( 235,000 ) and the large increase in hourly wages ( 0.6%)
https://www.barrons.com/articles/economy-jobs-report-fed-stagflation-51630706928?mod=past_editions
This coupled with dramatic decreases in the expected GDP growth ( 2.5% down from 6.5%) makes me very cautious.
As soon as the Fed takes away the punch bowl, watch out. But this time Bonds are so over priced there will be little shelter there, especially if rates rise

@newgirl -
No criticism of you intended. Ed’s one of my favorites. So, I appreciated your invitation to address his piece. He has an interesting writing style in which he seems to be “thinking out loud” (on script) as he goes along, rather than being tightly organized around central points. Far be it from me to critique him - but he can be hard to decipher some times.
Can’t beat his depth of experience. The fund Ed ran (OAKBX) viewed preservation of capital as paramount. Generally it was very good at that during his long tenure. And, I sense that concern often in reading him.
Buffett: - Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No.1."
(Quote attributed to Warren Buffett. Easier said than done. Certainly Buffett has experienced losses along the way.)

This week’s Barron’s is disappointing in that Randall Forsyth is missing for the second straight week. Ben Levisohn, filling in at the Up & Down Wall Street spot isn’t nearly as good, IMHO. Levisohn addresses Friday’s disappointing jobs numbers - but I’m not quite sure where he’s going …
Generally, this week’s publication reflects a highly bullish tone. Several articles mention a continuing accommodative Federal Reserve stance. One article is titled “A Homebuilder Stock That Could Soar 65%”. Another bullish take appears in the magazine’s lead article, “The Trader” with its headline: “The Trend is Your Friend.”
One note of dissension appears from perma-bear Alan M Newman in the section featuring recent “snippets” from different market pundits. Here’s a brief excerpt:
“There are now so many parallels with history-making manias such as the South Sea Bubble, the Roaring ’20s, Tulip Mania, and even the relatively recent Tech/Internet Bubble that the present era in retrospect, may one day appear the craziest of all …. Today’s parallels are every bit as crazy, even hilarious. While the blockchain technology that many of the roughly 4,500 invented crypto currencies is based on is valid, there is ample reason to dispute valuations …
A Google search for ‘intrinsic value of Dogecoin,’ returns ‘..has no intrinsic value’. Thus, Dogecoin has turned out to be the 2021 equivalent of “carrying on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is.’ You can’t make this stuff up, folks.” *
There’s an in-depth look at SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s efforts to overhaul equity trading platforms with the goal of making the prices paid by small investors fairer. Robinhood, particularly, is in his cross-hairs. Gensler likes to shake thing up. One may recall about a dozen years ago when he took on the mutual fund industry, publicly decrying what he considered excessive fees - at the same time his twin brother Robert managed one of T. Rowe Price’s largest equity funds.
* Excerpted passage from Barron’s - September 6, 2021
Feel free to add other opinions from Barron’s or other sources / pundits you may follow.

https://seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4453466-mgc-vanguards-mega-cap-etf-holds-nothing-but-winners
MGC: Vanguard's Mega-Cap ETF Holds Nothing But Winners
Sep. 3, 2021 1:24 PMVanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC)AAPL, AMZN, BRK.A
Summary
The Vanguard MGC ETF is a passive managed fund that tracks a Mega-Cap Index.
Maybe good idea buy some MCG

Sept 3rd Episode:

PYEWX
Also, look at short lived Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Admiral, VEGBX

@MikeW : Availability Trust Company Customers Only
Automatic Investment PlanHelp No
52 Week Range $42.85 - $67.91 (for SMVLX)
SVFAX is open at Schwab
Does this help, Derf

SMVLX is sold to retail investors at Fidelity, just not to investors seeking to open a new position.
If the convenience of buying (additional) shares through Fidelity is worth a little effort, open a position directly with the fund company and then transfer the shares. I've done that with a different fund. Not a difficult process.