Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
The old screener enabled one to select on many criteria, including 5 year trailing percentile ranking. The new tool (I hesitate to call it a screener, with so few screening criteria) returns 452 share classes of moderately conservative allocation funds.
With the exception of various classes of American Funds College 529 funds for 2030 (e.g. CTHFX) and 2027 (e.g. CTSFX), and Dunham Enhanced US Market DASPX / DCPSX / DNSPX, they all have analyst ratings.
I suspect Yogi is surprised that some of the usual names aren't regarded more highly. I've never been enamored with the analyst ratings, so this doesn't surprise me. Though perhaps he can identify some funds that are missing. All the T. Rowe Price and Vanguard moderately conservative funds are rated silver or gold.
As to the OP's question, the Investor Screener says the top 5-10 funds based on five year performance are: FMSDX, VTMFX, USBLX, TNXAX, WBALX, TRIFX, HBLYX, GSBFX, TAIFX. These may not be in precise rank order because funds have multiple share classes and I tried to list the highest ranked share class that could be purchased by a retail investor.
In my quick search with M* Investor Screener yesterday, I missed some usual hybrid favorites because:
1. M* has (again) changed allocation/balanced categories to descriptors: Conservative, Moderate-Conservative, Moderate, Moderate-Aggressive, Aggressive. IMO, it's good as I never liked the %based names (like Allocation/Balanced 30-50%, etc).
BTW, a new M* Category document that is typically published in April but is overdue (in the past, M* has just slipped in the new document but still with the April date).
2. Another recent M* change has separate ratings for classes, so the M* Investor Screener now shows zillions of AF classes that overwhelm the list. There is no way to suppress that (the old Screener had "Distinct Classes Only" option and that showed either the oldest class or that with the lowest ER). IMO, M* can leave the default as-is but add "Distinct Classes Only" option.
3. Some old favorites are Bronze or Neutral now. That can be explained by the terrible 2022 for hybrids that affected them differently (growth-oriented hybrids suffered more). But I doubt that many holders would swap out of them because of that. I noticed that but limited my mentions to Analysts Ratings of Gold/Silver only. For example, JABAX, a hybrid choice in my Schwab DAF is now Neutral, but if it remains that way, Schwab will likely kick it out and replace with something else.
Another recent M* change is the elimination of computer-generated Q-ratings. Justification provided is that the computer-generated ratings are now as good as genuine Analyst Ratings - may be a wishful thinking. I see lots of gobbledygook in the computer-generated ratings reports. M* needs more work on "Mo", its version of AI chatbot, or just use ChatGPT or Bard in the meantime.
FWIW, M* Analyst Ratings are forward-looking and based on multiple factors, while the Star-Ratings are purely based on past performance over 3, 5, 10 years (weighted). With old regular and Q ratings, this covered universe is now substantial.
3. I wondered about the "analyst" ratings when I saw that nearly all funds had them. Now I know - as far as M* is concerned, analysts can be replaced by a computer - no asterisks ("Q notations") needed.
Here's M*'s paper on Morningstar Medalist Rating Methodology. The date on the paper (Version 1.0) is May 2, 2023. But the date shown for the paper according to a M* search is Jan 31, 2023. (Related to Yogi's comments about dates on M* papers.)
1. While M* still provides its basic screener, it's been very slow in updating its fund categories. So you won't be able to use it to screen for moderately conservative allocation funds.
2. M* started giving each share class its own rating before it retired the "classic" premium fund screener. So adding individual share class ratings did not necessitate dropping the "distinct funds only" feature. As with other screening criteria that were dropped from the Investor screener, dropping "distinct funds only" was strictly a M* design decision. The individual share class ratings merely highlighted an implementation flaw in the premium screener.
In applying "distinct funds only", the premium screener would first eliminate all but one fund class (typically the oldest) of each fund and then apply the other criteria. This meant that sometimes it would miss a fund that had a share class satisfying all the selected criteria. That happened when the oldest share class did not satisfy the criteria. The premium screener should have screened on the other criteria and only then selected one share class of each fund in the result set.
All of this is duly noted here. Thanks for taking the time to spell it all out! One small detail continues to bug me: M* has made it difficult now, to compare funds using the charting feature , for a 10-year time span. 1,3,5 years is pre-set. And "Maximum." But that could be back to 1911 or only as far back as last Tuesday.
In order to compare funds for 10 years, you must enter it yourself. And when you do, the lovely, fabulous and marvelous people at Morningstar seem to have instructed the chart to go to the first or last day of the month, not the day you have entered. It's maddening. And so, I'm using M* less and less.
I have tried SimplyWallStreet. Have a couple of portfolios there. For a few days, going back some weeks now, they were all discombobulated. I went back to see what's what by now, and it seems to be functional again.
M* has set the chart tool to use monthly frequency for longer periods, viz. five years and max.
If that's what's happening to you, then before you enter your dates change the chart frequency back to daily. If you do that, the chart should accept whatever dates you enter for start and end dates. It won't flip them to month-end dates.
Comments
Moderate-Allocation BLPFX, RPBAX, VBINX / VBIAX, VSMGX
Moderate-Conservative-Allocation INPFX, FMSDX, TRRIX, VSCGX
I am surprised that some usual names are missing.
With the exception of various classes of American Funds College 529 funds for 2030 (e.g. CTHFX) and 2027 (e.g. CTSFX), and Dunham Enhanced US Market DASPX / DCPSX / DNSPX, they all have analyst ratings.
I suspect Yogi is surprised that some of the usual names aren't regarded more highly. I've never been enamored with the analyst ratings, so this doesn't surprise me. Though perhaps he can identify some funds that are missing. All the T. Rowe Price and Vanguard moderately conservative funds are rated silver or gold.
As to the OP's question, the Investor Screener says the top 5-10 funds based on five year performance are: FMSDX, VTMFX, USBLX, TNXAX, WBALX, TRIFX, HBLYX, GSBFX, TAIFX. These may not be in precise rank order because funds have multiple share classes and I tried to list the highest ranked share class that could be purchased by a retail investor.
1. M* has (again) changed allocation/balanced categories to descriptors: Conservative, Moderate-Conservative, Moderate, Moderate-Aggressive, Aggressive. IMO, it's good as I never liked the %based names (like Allocation/Balanced 30-50%, etc).
BTW, a new M* Category document that is typically published in April but is overdue (in the past, M* has just slipped in the new document but still with the April date).
2. Another recent M* change has separate ratings for classes, so the M* Investor Screener now shows zillions of AF classes that overwhelm the list. There is no way to suppress that (the old Screener had "Distinct Classes Only" option and that showed either the oldest class or that with the lowest ER). IMO, M* can leave the default as-is but add "Distinct Classes Only" option.
3. Some old favorites are Bronze or Neutral now. That can be explained by the terrible 2022 for hybrids that affected them differently (growth-oriented hybrids suffered more). But I doubt that many holders would swap out of them because of that. I noticed that but limited my mentions to Analysts Ratings of Gold/Silver only. For example, JABAX, a hybrid choice in my Schwab DAF is now Neutral, but if it remains that way, Schwab will likely kick it out and replace with something else.
Another recent M* change is the elimination of computer-generated Q-ratings. Justification provided is that the computer-generated ratings are now as good as genuine Analyst Ratings - may be a wishful thinking. I see lots of gobbledygook in the computer-generated ratings reports. M* needs more work on "Mo", its version of AI chatbot, or just use ChatGPT or Bard in the meantime.
FWIW, M* Analyst Ratings are forward-looking and based on multiple factors, while the Star-Ratings are purely based on past performance over 3, 5, 10 years (weighted). With old regular and Q ratings, this covered universe is now substantial.
For those with M* access, https://community.morningstar.com/s/question/0D53o00006ce0GGCAY/m-updates-2023
For those without M* access, https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/460/updates-2023
3. I wondered about the "analyst" ratings when I saw that nearly all funds had them. Now I know - as far as M* is concerned, analysts can be replaced by a computer - no asterisks ("Q notations") needed.
Here's M*'s paper on Morningstar Medalist Rating Methodology. The date on the paper (Version 1.0) is May 2, 2023. But the date shown for the paper according to a M* search is Jan 31, 2023. (Related to Yogi's comments about dates on M* papers.)
1. While M* still provides its basic screener, it's been very slow in updating its fund categories. So you won't be able to use it to screen for moderately conservative allocation funds.
2. M* started giving each share class its own rating before it retired the "classic" premium fund screener. So adding individual share class ratings did not necessitate dropping the "distinct funds only" feature. As with other screening criteria that were dropped from the Investor screener, dropping "distinct funds only" was strictly a M* design decision. The individual share class ratings merely highlighted an implementation flaw in the premium screener.
In applying "distinct funds only", the premium screener would first eliminate all but one fund class (typically the oldest) of each fund and then apply the other criteria. This meant that sometimes it would miss a fund that had a share class satisfying all the selected criteria. That happened when the oldest share class did not satisfy the criteria. The premium screener should have screened on the other criteria and only then selected one share class of each fund in the result set.
Sorry, but may I be so bold to ask for the top 10 in Sharpe over 5 years?
In order to compare funds for 10 years, you must enter it yourself. And when you do, the lovely, fabulous and marvelous people at Morningstar seem to have instructed the chart to go to the first or last day of the month, not the day you have entered. It's maddening. And so, I'm using M* less and less.
I have tried Simply Wall Street. Have a couple of portfolios there. For a few days, going back some weeks now, they were all discombobulated. I went back to see what's what by now, and it seems to be functional again.
If that's what's happening to you, then before you enter your dates change the chart frequency back to daily. If you do that, the chart should accept whatever dates you enter for start and end dates. It won't flip them to month-end dates.