I just received the 19a for IOFIX showing the estimated FY-2020 source of distributions to consist of 50% ROC. As others have mentioned however these are not the final figures.
From the 19a notice:
"Not Tax Reporting. The amounts and sources of distributions reported in this notice are only estimates in order to comply with SEC regulations and are not being provided for tax reporting purposes. The actual amounts and sources of the amounts for tax reporting purposes will depend upon each Fund’s investment experience during the remainder of its fiscal year and may be subject to changes based on tax regulations. The Fund will send you a Form 1099-DIV in early 2022 for the 2021 calendar year that will tell you how to report these distributions for federal income tax purposes (e.g., ordinary income, long-term capital gain or return of capital)."

I just called to Fidelity, they discussed it with tax people without connecting me to them, and the reply was that I should wait for the final version of 1099 and if there is any issue I should contact IOFIX directly. So I will wait.
I have 19(a) forms from March to November 2020 as pdf files. Note that the forms 19(a) are not personal, my name is not present on them, they are addressed to ALL shareholders. However, I am not sure that one can use them for filing tax returns since each of them says that this is just AN ESTIMATE, not for tax reporting. Each form that I have says that approximately half of the distribution is ROC, the March form is special, it says that 100% of it is ROC. This is very different from what I see on my preliminary 1099; let us hope that this issue will be clarified.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312521047245/d136720d497.htm
497 1 d136720d497.htm 497
MATTHEWS ASIA FUNDS
Supplement dated February 18, 2021
to Prospectus dated April 29, 2020, as supplemented
This supplement should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus dated April 29, 2020, as supplemented.
For all existing shareholders of the Matthews Emerging Asia Fund—Institutional Class (MIASX) and Investor Class (MEASX):
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Matthews Asia Funds (the “Trust”) has approved the tax-free reorganization (the “Reorganization”) of the Matthews Emerging Asia Fund, a series of the Trust (the “Target Fund”), into the Matthews Asia Small Companies Fund, a series of the Trust (the “Acquiring Fund”), which is expected to be renamed the Matthews Emerging Markets Small Companies Fund on or about April 30, 2021. The Reorganization does not require the approval of the shareholders of the Target Fund or the Acquiring Fund.
The Matthews Emerging Markets Small Companies Fund will, as a result of the name change, also change its investment policies so that it will invest, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets in the common and preferred stocks of small-capitalization companies located in emerging market countries anywhere in the world. Emerging market countries generally include every country in the world except the United States, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore and most of the countries in Western Europe. These changes to the name and principal investment strategies of the Acquiring Fund are subject to possible further changes related to obtaining effectiveness of an amendment to the registration statement and revised disclosure, which is expected to occur on or about April 30, 2021.
The Reorganization was proposed because Matthews International Capital Management, LLC, the Funds’ investment adviser (“Matthews”), recognized that Asia now represents approximately 75% of the emerging markets small capitalization universe, and therefore that there is an increasing overlap between an investment strategy focused on small companies in emerging market countries and one focused on small companies in Asia. Further, Matthews believes that shareholders of each Fund will benefit more from exposure to a broader investment universe as well as from potential operating efficiencies and economies of scale that may be achieved by combining the Funds’ assets in the Reorganization, than by continuing to operate the Funds separately. Matthews also believes that the Acquiring Fund’s investment objective and strategies make it a compatible fund within the Trust for a reorganization with the Target Fund. The Target Fund and the Acquiring Fund have the same investment objective and similar investment strategies, policies, risks and restrictions.
To effectuate the Reorganization, the Target Fund will transfer all of its assets to the Acquiring Fund, and the Acquiring Fund will assume all of the liabilities of the Target Fund. On the date of the closing of the Reorganization, shareholders of the Target Fund will receive Institutional Class or Investor Class shares, as applicable, of the Acquiring Fund equal in aggregate net asset value to the value of their shares of the Target Fund, in exchange for their shares of the Target Fund. The Reorganization is expected to be effective on or about April 29, 2021.
Effective after the close of business on April 16, 2021, shares of the Target Fund will no longer be offered to new or existing shareholders, and shareholders holding shares of any other series of the Trust will not be able to exchange their shares for shares of the Target Fund.
Effective on or about April 30, 2021, in connection with the name change of the Acquiring Fund, Robert Harvey, CFA, who is currently a Lead Manager of the Target Fund, will become a Co-Manager of the Acquiring Fund. Vivek Tanneeru, who has been Lead Manager of the Acquiring Fund since August 2020, will remain as Lead Manager of the Acquiring Fund. In addition, Jeremy Sutch, CFA, who has been a Senior Research Analyst at Matthews since 2015 and has supported the firm’s India and Pacific Tiger strategies, will become a Co-Manager of the Acquiring Fund.
If you do not want to participate in the Reorganization, you may redeem your shares of the Target Fund in the ordinary course until the last business day before the Reorganization is effective. Redemption requests received after that time will be treated as redemption requests for shares of the Acquiring Fund received in connection with the Reorganization.
Please keep this Supplement with your Prospectus.
From Matthews' website (check the footnotes) on the page:
https://us.matthewsasia.com/resources/docs/fund-documents/

I read that too, but Apple remains the largest holding in Berkshire Hathaway.
Look like he is taking profit from Apple and rotating into other value stocks. Trimming long held positions in Wells Fargo and JP Morgan indicates he is more flexible than in the past. Perhaps this came from his money managers. Selling all leisure/airline stocks is a good call and some of them are trending downward from the low of March 2020. His managers are very savvy investors.

I hold some IOFAX at Schwab and since the disastrous fall in the share price last year, I have received an email referring me to the monthly AC details on the distributions, with the ROC clearly identified. Unfortunately I have not archived or saved those emails, so I’m not sure how I’m going to access the information when I do my taxes. Given what others are saying here it may be my job to track down the ROC monthly figures and plug them into TurboTax. I’ll need the ROC info for 2021 taxes because I’m selling down my position now, but I had no sales in 2020.

Hi, guys.
I wanted to follow up with the GP folks before sharing anything. Exchanged notes with their president yesterday, and we've just sent this note to the folks on MFO's mailing list. I wanted to share if with you against the prospect that any of it is interesting to you.
David
- - - - -
On February 12, Grandeur Peak announced their intention to institute a "hard close" for four funds and a soft close on one fund. A hard close is one that stops additional purchases by both new and existing shareholders; a soft close stops new investors from opening accounts. The funds affected are:
Hard closed: Global Opportunities, International Opportunities, International Stalwarts and Global Micro Cap.
Soft closed: Emerging Markets Opportunities.
Each of the affected funds returned between 30-50% in 2020; Global Micro Cap and Emerging Markets have already posted double-digit returns for 2021. The hard closed funds all have four star ratings from Morningstar and are MFO Honor Roll funds; in addition, International Stalwarts is an MFO Great Owl which signals consistently first-tier risk-adjusted returns.
The public explanation was "we carefully review capacity at both the strategy and firm level. We are committed to keeping our investment strategies nimble to fully pursue their investment objectives without being encumbered by their individual asset base or the firm’s collective assets."
I asked president Eric Huefner to talk a bit about the necessity to close a $60 million fund and the oddity of hard-closing one of their least capacity-constrained funds. He noted that Global Micro Cap closed on the day it was launched but has doubled in size in the past 12 months. That's due to modest inflows, "sticky" investors and a 50% return in 2020. Grandeur's goal is "total investment flexibility in the micro-cap arena"
The Stalwarts funds were created, primarily, to serve the needs of investment advisors who had worked with Grandeur for years but found that Grandeur's "core" funds were now closed and, hence, inaccessible to new clients. The suite of Stalwarts funds were designed to give investors access to Grandeur's style through funds that targeted slightly larger (hence, more liquid) stocks. The hope was that those funds would not have to close as quickly as the small- and micro-cap focused core funds. I asked about what had happened to limit capacity. Mr. Huefner noted that total capacity for the Stalwarts strategy - funds + SMAs, US/global/international - was in the $5-7 billion range with International having more assets than the other two combined. "We soft closed the Int’l Stalwarts strategy in June [but] the AUM in the International Stalwarts strategy has still grown more than 40% since then. Given the continuing rapid growth, it felt necessary to close it in order to preserve space for our other Stalwarts strategies."
If you believe that the market will continue on its recent trajectory, dominated by US large tech stops, then there's nothing much you need to do. If you believe that the market might be rotating in response to a new administration, a new environment or simple exhaustion, you might anticipate international outperforming domestic, developing outperforming developed, small outperforming large. These funds are at the vanguard of investing in those style.
Possible responses to their closing:
Check your target asset allocation, whether for the individual fund or the asset class it represents. Consider whether you want to make an additional allocation now, in an admittedly pricey market, to bring your investment in line with your target.
In my case, Global Micro Cap is my third-largest holding and represents 15% of my portfolio. As much as I'm delighted by its performance - 18% annually since launch - it would be hard for me to justify allocating more there now.
Consider alternative GP funds as options. The young Global Contrarian fund has an R-squared of 97 against Global Micro Cap. Both have substantial micro cap exposure (about 40%) with Contrarian's stocks being a bit larger and noticeably lower priced than Micro Caps.
Similarly, Global Stalwarts has a correlation to International Stalwarts of 98 and a nearly identical Sharpe ratio, annual return and maximum drawdown. Global is about 55% international.
Consider Rondure, Wasatch and Seven Canyons funds as options. All four families are driven by Wasatch alumni. While they have very distinctive perspectives and strengths, all have a shared perspective on global small- and micro-cap investing and a respect for their investors as partners. By way of example, Rondure New World (four star, $250 million) has an R-squared of 95 against Emerging Markets Opportunities and Wasatch EM Small Cap (four star, $520 million) has an R-squared of 93. These are all very solid advisors with investor-centered cultures and strong records, though not identical strategies. Between them, 11 of their 24 eligible funds (those with records of three years or more) have earned an MFO Great Owl designation.

Here's a bit of additional information excerpted from a recent article in the WSJ:

The billionaire Warren Buffett added two more big, American brands to Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s investment portfolio.
Mr. Buffett’s conglomerate has purchased $8.6 billion in stock in Verizon Communications Inc., the largest U.S. mobile carrier, and $4.1 billion in Chevron Corp. according to a snapshot of investments held in the quarter ended Dec. 31.
In 2020, Chevron had its worst year since 2016, and Verizon’s fourth-quarter profit fell after it booked higher costs and gained fewer new customers than usual.
It isn’t clear whether Mr. Buffett made the decision to invest in the two firms or if the decision was made by Berkshire money managers Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. The two are expected to take over all of Berkshire’s investments once Mr. Buffett is no longer in the top job.
Berkshire adjusted some of its drugmaker investments bets. The conglomerate sold off its $136 million investment in the Covid-19 vaccine maker Pfizer Inc., while increasing stakes in the pharmaceutical brands AbbVie Inc., Merck & Co. and Bristol Myers Squibb Co.
It also continued to cut back from financial firms, selling off its remaining $93 million investment in JPMorgan Chase & Co., and whittling away at its stake in Wells Fargo & Co. by $1.4 billion.
Last year Berkshire Hathaway sold stakes in airlines, including United Airlines Holdings Inc., American Airlines Group Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co. Mr. Buffett said he thought consumer behavior regarding travel had changed for the long term.

Additionally, I believe that in the past few days I read an article reporting that Berkshire had significantly cut back it's investments in Apple, but I'm unable to locate that source at this time.

House hearing marks first time major figures have all been forced to publicly reckon with trading saga
Following are edited excerpts from a current article in The Guardian:

Frenzied trading in the shares of GameStop and other companies will be the subject of what is expected to be a fiery hearing in Congress on Thursday, when US politicians get their first chance to quiz executives from the trading app Robinhood, Reddit and other players in the saga.
The House financial services committee will hold a hearing at noon in a first step to untangling the furore surrounding trading in GameStop, AMC cinemas and other companies whose share values soared to astronomical levels as small investors piled into the stocks.
Shares in GameStop, a troubled video games chain store, soared 1,600% in January, as an army of small investors, many using the trading app Robinhood, appeared to have bet that Wall Street hedge funds had overplayed their hand when betting the stock price would collapse – a practice known as short-selling. Spurred on by meme-toting members of the Reddit forum WallStreetBets, investors kept buying the shares, driving up the price and triggering huge losses for some hedge funds.
Robinhood briefly suspended trading in GameStop and other hot stocks at the end of January and sparked allegations that the hedge funds and others may have pushed Robinhood and other trading platforms to stop the rout.
Among those testifying are: Robinhood’s CEO, Vlad Tenev, Reddit’s CEO, Steve Huffman, Gabe Plotkin, founder of the Melvin Capital Management hedge fund (which was forced into a rescue after retail traders crushed its bets against GameStop), Ken Griffin, billionaire CEO of Citadel, an investment firm that executes Robinhood clients’ trades and also helped to bail out Melvin, and Keith Gill, a trader variously known online as "Roaring Kitty" and "DeepFuckingValue" and a longtime GameStop booster.
The associate director for economic policy at the Center for American Progress, said: “The GameStop drama raised quite a few public policy questions but first it’s important for members of Congress to understand how events played out.”
More broadly, he said, GameStop had highlighted many crucial issues for regulators, including the role and regulation of hedge funds, whether or how Wall Street is using social media to drive investment strategy, the “gamification” of investing by trading apps and the economic incentives at play for the trading platforms.
“What would have happened if Robinhood had failed? What would have been the knock-on effects for financial markets?” he asked. “These are huge investor protection questions.
The hearing will not be the last inquiry that the executives at the center of the controversy will face. Federal prosecutors have begun an investigation, according to the Wall Street Journal, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US’s top financial watchdog, is reportedly combing through social media posts for signs of potential fraud.
In the meantime, evidence has emerged that small investors were not the largest buyers of GameStop and other hot companies. According to an analysis by JP Morgan, institutional investors may have been behind much of the dramatic rise in the share price: “Although retail buying was portrayed as the main driver of the extreme price rally experienced by some stocks, the actual picture may be much more nuanced”.

For those of you who like to study information like this. I found it a bit of a surprise that their top three holdings are at ~63% of the entire portfolio although Mr. Buffett has often mused that diversification is for wimps.
Portfolio end of quarter 4, 2020

I did receive my 1099 concerning IOFIX; my shares are held with the transfer agent; not a brokerage.
We receive a Form 2439 (Notice to Shareholder of Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gains) for the same company; one is from the transfer agent and the other one is from the brokerage. Form 2439 from the transfer agent is generally received weeks ahead of the one from the brokerage.

I wonder whether IOFIX informs brokerages like Fidelity or TD that in 2020 about half of its distributions were not dividends but return of capital (ROC)? When I talked to IOFIX and Fidelity, they said that I should not worry and everything will be properly mentioned in 1099, but I have heard from a friend with an account at TD that this may not be the case.
So I wonder whether anybody received 1099 correctly describing dividends and ROC in the distributions of IOFIX? Any other related experience/comments?

I "love" Grantham/GMO predictions
12/31/2020 (link) 7 year prediction were: US LC will make 0.4% + 2.5% = 2.9% annually. EM will make 4.1%+2.5% inflation=6.6%. The real results(link) show SPY=13.65 annually EEM=1.9% annually
2012(link): "Jeremy Grantham Warns 2013 Will Be A Dangerous Year For Stocks". 2013 results: VFIAX 32.3%.
2015(link>): "GMO founder Grantham says markets ‘ripe for major decline’ in 2016". The results: +11.9%
Why do they keep listening to him? Panic and bad news sell....wait, I know, one day the market will crash, what a story.

follow-up:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1545440/000139834421003462/fp0062438_497.htm
497 1 fp0062438_497.htm
February 16, 2021
KARNER BLUE BIODIVERSITY IMPACT FUND
Investor Class (KAIAX)
Institutional Class (KAIIX)
ButterflyTM Class (KAIBX)
Each A Series of Ultimus Managers Trust
Supplement to Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information dated September 28, 2020
This supplement updates certain information in the Summary Prospectus (“Summary Prospectus”), the Prospectus (“Prospectus”) and the Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) of the Karner Blue Biodiversity Impact Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Ultimus Managers Trust. For more information or to obtain a copy of the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus or SAI, free of charge, please visit the Fund’s website at www.biodiversityimpactfund.com or call the Fund toll free at 1-855-KBANIML (855-522-6465).
Closure and Conversion of Shares
On March 18, 2021, all existing shares of the Investor Class and Institutional Class of the Fund will be converted into shares of the ButterflyTM Class of the Fund (the “Conversion”). There will be no fees charged in connection with the Conversion. After the Conversion, the Fund will offer only a single class of shares – the ButterflyTM Class.
There are no tax consequences anticipated with the Conversion, and no action is necessary on your part to effect the Conversion. Shareholders should consult with their own tax advisors to ensure proper treatment on their income tax returns.
Shareholders may continue to purchase and redeem Investor Class and Institutional Class shares of the Fund on each business day until the Conversion on March 18, 2021.
After the Conversion, all references to the Investor Class and Institutional Class of the Fund are hereby struck from the Fund’ Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and SAI.
Changes to the ButterflyTM Class Shares
Effective on February March 18, 2021, the minimum initial investment amount for ButterflyTM Class shares of the Fund will be $2,000. References in the Fund’s Summary Prospectus and Prospectus to the ButterflyTM Class’ minimum investment amounts in the section titled “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” and in the section titled “How to Buy Shares” are hereby modified accordingly.
Also Effective on March 18, 2021, the ButterflyTM Class of the Fund will be subject to the Fund’s Administrative Service Plan, and may make service fee payments to financial intermediaries for certain administrative, recordkeeping, and other non-distribution related services at an annual rate of up to 0.10% of the Fund’s average daily net assets. The Administrative Service Plan and the accompanying fee, is identical to that which applied to the Institutional Class shares of the Fund, and the section in the Fund’s Prospectus and SAI titled “Administrative Services Plan” should now be read to apply to the ButterflyTM Class of the Fund, rather than to the Institutional Class.
Change to the Investment Adviser’s Address
Effective immediately, the address of the Fund’s investment adviser, Karner Blue Capital, LLC, is as follows:
Karner Blue Capital, LLC
7315 Wisconsin Avenue #650W
Bethesda, MD 20814
All references to the address of the Fund’s investment adviser in the Prospectus and SAI are hereby modified accordingly.
If you have any questions regarding the Fund, please call 1-855-KBANIML (855-522-6465).

Taking reports of side effects now the vaccines have been given to over 40 million people is fraught with difficulty, as there is no longer a placebo group to compare to. Anyone who has a serious medical problem after the vaccine will likely be reported to the FDA but that does not mean that the vaccine caused the stoke or heart attacks or whatever. The frequency of adverse reaction the FDA reports in post marketing studies are reflective of whatever reports they receive.
30,000 people were in both of the Pfizer and Moderna studies which is a huge number. It is large enough to give us confidence that the most serious side effects would show up, and could be compared to their frequency in the placebo group.
I would suggest people who are interested read the original FDA data both Moderna and Pfizer submitted. You can quickly go to the section on side effects and see the actual data that compares the vaccine recipients to their placebo counterparts. The tables are clear and easy to follow.
Here is Moderna
https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
The text for "deaths" follows.
"Serious Adverse Events Deaths As of December 3, 2020, 13 deaths were reported (6 vaccine, 7 placebo). Two deaths in the vaccine group were in participants >75 years of age with pre-existing cardiac disease; one participant died of cardiopulmonary arrest 21 days after dose 1, and one participant died of myocardial infarction 45 days after dose 2. Another two vaccine recipients were found deceased at home, and the cause of these deaths is uncertain: a 70-year-old participant with cardiac disease was found deceased 57 days after dose 2, and a 56-year-old participant with hypertension, chronic back pain being treated with opioid medication died 37 days after dose 1 (The official cause of death was listed as head trauma). One case was a 72-year-old vaccine recipient with Crohn’s disease and short bowel syndrome who was hospitalized for thrombocytopenia and acute kidney failure due to obstructive nephrolithiasis 40 days after dose 2 and developed complications resulting in multiorgan failure and death. One vaccine recipient died of suicide 21 days after dose 1. The placebo recipients died from myocardial infarction (n=3), intra-abdominal perforation (n=1), systemic inflammatory response syndrome in the setting of known malignancy (n=1), COVID-19 (n=1), and unknown cause (n=1). These deaths represent events and rates that occur in the general population of individuals in these age groups.
Non-fatal Serious Adverse Events Among participants who received at least one dose of vaccine or placebo (N=30,351), the proportion of participants who reported at least one SAE from dose 1 to the primary analysis cutoff date (November 25, 2020) was 1% in the mRNA-1273 group and 1% in the placebo group. The most common SAEs occurring at higher rates in the vaccine group than the placebo group were myocardial infarction (0.03% in vaccine group, 5 cases vs. 3 cases in placebo group), cholecystitis (0.02% in vaccine group, 3 cases vs. 0 cases in placebo group), and nephrolithiasis (0.02% in vaccine group, 3 cases vs. 0 cases in placebo group). The small numbers of cases of these events do not suggest a causal relationship. The most common SAEs occurring at higher rates in the placebo arm than the vaccine arm, aside from COVID-19 (0.1% in placebo group), were pneumonia (0.05% in placebo group) and pulmonary embolism (0.03% in placebo group). Occurrence of other SAEs, including cardiovascular SAEs, were otherwise balanced between treatment groups. "
I think it is fair to say these vaccines are very safe, and at least so far, very very effective

I listened to that Grantham interview on Bloomberg 2-3 times one day recently. He lays out a convincing case. But there are equally good arguments on both sides.
As far as Grantham’s argument goes he’s focused on three areas: (1) He thinks artificial risk asset impetus has been supplied from over a decade of easing by the Fed and other central banks. Since he doesn’t think this can continue much longer (deficits / unrealistically low rates) he sees an eventual popping of the “bubble”. (2) He sees a near hysterical chasing of return today irregardless of risk - a euphoria he equates with the final stages of bull markets. (3) He takes issue with high valuations in some sectors - technology particularity.
It should be noted that Grantham is more sanguine re value stocks, thinking there are pockets of opportunity in that depressed sector. He sounds downright bullish on emerging markets - if one has a long enough time horizon.
Each investor needs to consider his own time frame, risk tolerance, overall financial situation before undertaking any changes. I’ve grown a bit more cautious over the past couple months. The last two years were good to most investors. So, irrespective of Grantham, I see no compelling reason for a retiree to be overly aggressive at this point. I’m sharing how my allocation has changed in recent months as I try to protect 50+ years of accumulated retirement savings. Your situation is doubtless different and so should be your approach.
* End of 2020: Alternatives 25%, Equity/Balanced Funds 25%, Diversified Bond 25%, Cash & cash alternatives 15%, Real Assets & Commodity 10%.
* Today: Alternatives 33%, Equity/Balanced 20%, Diversified Bond 20%, Cash & cash alternatives 15%, Real Assets & Commodity 7%, Benchmark Fund (PRSIX) 5%.
Explanatory Notes:
- TMSRX accounts for about 50% of the alternative portion. PRPFX comprises most of the rest.
- I’ve gone much shorter on the diversified bond holdings. DODLX is the riskiest one at 50%. The rest consists of short term bond funds like newly opened TSDLX.
- I’ve moved most of the cash into a medium duration TIPS index fund,
- I’ve switched from TRRIX to PRSIX as my benchmark and have added a small allocation to that fund. One difference between the two above funds ... PRSIX commits 0-10% to a Blackstone hedge fund. TRRIX does not.
- There remains a small spec position in a mining fund.

Thankyou all
You can also report severe side effects to your Healthcare agency and they may forward info to cdc
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/after.html
Adverse Reactions
Up-to-date
https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-vaccines-to-prevent-sars-cov-2-infection
The following adverse reactions and incidences are derived from the FDA issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) unless otherwise specified. Refer to EUAs for specific vaccines for information regarding reporting adverse reactions (FDA 2020; FDA 2021c).
>10%:
Gastrointestinal: Diarrhea (Pfizer: 8% to 11% [placebo: 6% to 12%]; higher in younger patients), nausea and vomiting (Moderna: 9% to 21% [placebo: 4% to 8%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose)
Local: Pain at injection site (66% to 90% [placebo: 8% to 19%]; higher in younger patients), swelling at injection site (4% to 13% [placebo: 0.2% to 1.2%])
Nervous system: Chills (Moderna: 5% to 49%; Pfizer: 6% to 35% [placebo: 3% to 6%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose), fatigue (33% to 68% [placebo: 17% to 33%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose), headache (Moderna: 25% to 63%; Pfizer: 25% to 52% [placebo: 18% to 34%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose)
Neuromuscular & skeletal: Arthralgia (Moderna: 16% to 46%; Pfizer: 9% to 22% [placebo: 4% to 12%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose), axillary swelling (Moderna: Including axillary tenderness; 6% to 16% [placebo: 3% to 5%]; higher in younger patients), myalgia (Moderna: 20% to 62%; Pfizer: 14% to 37% [placebo: 5% to 14%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose)
Miscellaneous: Fever (<1% to 16% [placebo: 0.1% to 0.9%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose)
1% to 10%:
Gastrointestinal: Nausea (Pfizer: 1%), vomiting (Pfizer: <1% to 2% [placebo: 0.3% to 1.2%]; higher in younger patients)
Hematologic & oncologic: Lymphadenopathy (≤1% [placebo: <0.1% to 0.6%]; unsolicited) (Polack 2020)
Hypersensitivity: Hypersensitivity reaction (Moderna: Including injection site rash and injection site urticaria; 2% [placebo: 1.1%])
Local: Erythema at injection site (2% to 9% [placebo: 0.4% to 1.1%])
<1%: Nervous system: Malaise (Pfizer)
Frequency not defined:
Dermatologic: Facial swelling (Moderna)
Gastrointestinal: Appendicitis (Pfizer; unsolicited; data insufficient to determine causal relationship)
Hypersensitivity: Anaphylaxis (CDC 2021; CDC/FDA 2021a; CDC/FDA 2021b)
Local: Local swelling (at or near the site of dermal fillers [eg, face or lips]) (CDC 2021)
Nervous system: Bell’s palsy (unsolicited; data insufficient to determine causal relationship)
Neuromuscular & skeletal: Joint injury (shoulder; unsolicited) (Polack 2020)

@Crash Two different Browns: Brown Capital Management vs. Brown Advisory.

Last Sunday, 7 February, all ratings were updated on our MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, Portfolios, QuickSearch, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.
Today, we launched a new tool for premium subscribers: "Dashboard of Launch Alerts."
The "Launches Dashboard" compiles and tracks funds first appearing in our "Launch Alert" feature of the monthly MFO commentary. It follows a format similar to the Profiles Dashboard, but lists funds by alert date, most recent on top to oldest on bottom, since MFO launched in May 2011.
Hundreds of new funds are launched annually (e.g., 590 in 2020), but most are not worth mentioning. David highlights just a dozen or so each year.
When a manager with a strong record leaves an established firm to start anew, David lets us know:

• Andrew Foster created Seafarer Capital Partners, LLC and launched Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income (SIGIX), as discussed in the February 2012
  commentary.
  


• Laura Geritz created Rondure Global Advisors, LLC and launched
  Rondure New World (RNWIX) in 2016.

As he does when an established firm of high stewardship launches a fund in a new market:

• Vanguard Emerging Markets Government Bond Index (VWOB) in the March 2013 commentary.


• T Rowe Price Total Return (PTTFX) in December 2016.

Usually, the Launch Alerts contain a paragraph or two describing why the fund may be worthy. Some are longer than others, a kind of mini-profile:

• Towpath Focus (TOWFX) launched by Mark Oelschlager and highlighted in September 2020 feature.
  

Since 2016, MFO breaks-out Launch Alerts in the new magazine format. Before that, they were included in the long-scroll format.
Many of the funds in Launch Alert have gone-on to do quite well, some spectacularly. While about 1-in-6, as of January 2021, end-up in the dust bin (not shown, e.g., Whitebox Funds).
As an adviser or individual investor, I would check this list often.
Premium subscribers can access the new tool here. QuickSearch, Great Owls, Three Alarm, and Profiles tools remain available to the public without subscription.
Enjoy!

Howdy @JonGaltIII
Since the 2010 census, about 10,000 baby boomers a day (retire, too) have crossed the age 65 threshold and by 2030, all boomers will be at least age 65. From 2019 data the boomers are about 72 million in population. Our house is boomers x 2. While there are now and will be failures of individual holdings within healthcare, I still fully consider this a growth area for equity. These folks will require more maintenance than the under 40 age group, yes? There will be the fails of hospitals, health insurance companies and the best laid plans for the next magic drug. There will likely also be continued mergers and acquisitions of big and small companies in many areas. This sector has had its recent funky periods (2015-2016), so it is not a slam dunk; but I still have faith in the broad sectors.
From the devils advocate perspective, One would have to perform an overview of personal holdings to discover how much exposure your holdings have to healthcare now and how much you desire. The 3 below breakdowns give a hint to health sectors from various funds.
Our own personal perspective is provide equity exposure that is meaningful to performance of the entire portfolio. We generally do not hold less than 10% of total portfolio in a given investment area. Performance may allow this number to become 25%; but this is an individuals judgement; based upon portfolio risk and faith in the sector.
Our healthcare holdings travel the road between United Healthcare and genomics and whatever else is in the mix. The healthcare holdings over the years has more than paid for our supplemental insurance plans via United Healthcare. Invest in what you (and many others) use.
Though FSMEX is currently open, the last hard close was a no-notify close at the end of a business; without a grace period.
Lastly, if one were to have a full tour of various medical areas in a large hospital; you'd be able to view a large number of products from companies where you hold investments.
My 2 cents worth.
Take care,
Catch
AS OF 12/31/2020
FSPHX Portfolio Weight
Biotechnology 24.27%
Health Care Equipment 20.25%
Managed Health Care 18.10%
Pharmaceuticals 18.03%
Health Care Services 8.04%
Life Sciences Tools & Services 6.93%
Health Care Technology 1.51%
Health Care Facilities 1.36%
Application Software 0.65%
Research & Consulting Services 0.29%
Other Diversified Financial Services 0.08%
Investment Banking & Brokerage 0.02%
FSMEX Portfolio Weight
Health Care Equipment 55.23%
Life Sciences Tools & Services 23.09%
Managed Health Care 5.75%
Health Care Supplies 3.90%
Health Care Technology 3.79%
Health Care Services 3.46%
Biotechnology 2.34%
Application Software 0.86%
Insurance Brokers 0.52%
Apparel, Accessories & Luxury Goods 0.38%
Research & Consulting Services 0.36%
Textiles 0.22%
Investment Banking & Brokerage 0.03%
FSPGX Portfolio Weight (likely a typical growth index weighting)
Information Technology 44.88%
Consumer Discretionary 16.67%
Health Care 13.49%
Communication Services 10.99%
Consumer Staples 4.53%
Industrials 4.51%
Financials 1.86%
Real Estate 1.61%
Materials 0.80%
Multi Sector 0.54%
Energy 0.08%
Utilities 0.02%

Interesting reading here. I owned FSELX for a while. I subscribed to the notion that AI will be growing and semiconductors is a prudent long term high growth play. It probably still is but the gyrations with NVidia and Intel - I couldn't take the volatility and sold it. It was probably a mistake. Long term... this is likely a good bet.
Another fund I had was @Puddnhead FSDAX . I bought it 5 years ago before the last administration took office. It was a pure guess that a focus on Defense and build up would be positive for this fund. I did sell it in late 1999 or early 2020 (I can't recall exactly when). Pudd - are you still in it?
I save a little space to speculate in sector funds or "trending" spaces. In 2021 - I'm in EM + Small Cap + Healthcare as my trending...