EVSM holdings

Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing; what the measure does not tell you · every fund in one table · hold it with other funds? X-ray the mix. Pricing: 0.77% at a quoted market price (level 1), 3 issuer countries, 3.93% restricted securities.

EVSM's largest investment is City Of Gainesville, Series 2012 B at 1.15% of net assets. City Of Los Angeles, Series 2026 and Commonwealth Of Puerto Rico, Series 2022 A-1 follow; the three together are 3.43%. Ten companies are 10.35% of the fund; the other 372 share the rest. Among the 192 bond funds measured here, EVSM behaves like 234.7 holdings against a median of 236.4 — close to the median. Across 10 quarterly filings EVSM has become less concentrated: it behaved like 70.1 at 2024-03-31 and 234.7 at 2026-06-30. Between the 2026-03-31 and 2026-06-30 filings 63 positions were added and 29 dropped; 19.8% of the weight moved.

Each sentence is read from the fund's own SEC filing; the class median is computed across the comparable bond funds on this site. Nothing here is a view on the fund.

Between 2024-03-31 and 2026-06-30, EVSM went from behaving like 70.1 equally weighted positions to 234.7 — 235% more, while its top ten went from 20.73% to 10.35% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.

One row per filed reporting period, newest first, read from EDGAR. Quarterly because that is the public filing cadence. Rows marked * are published but held out of the comparison above; the methodology page says when and why.

The 15 largest of 382 positions in EVSM's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: EVSM.csv.gz.

Share of EVSM's own investments by the issuer country the filer reported (incorporation, not revenue). Each country links to every fund that holds it.

Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of EVSM's own filings, 30 months on record. Not computed here and not from a price feed.

Cross-checked against a series computed separately from prices: median difference — percentage points over 0 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: EVSM.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-06-30, $153,905 was out to 1 borrower, 0.02% of net assets.

Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.02% of net assets, 98.5% of the amount lent. That is a floor on the collateral, not the whole of it — collateral the fund does not hold as a position is not in this filing, so a figure under 100% is not evidence of under-collateralisation. How that figure behaves across all funds. Every quarter EVSM has filed, with each borrower: EVSM.json · all funds.

348 positions became 382: 63 added (18.6% of the fund at the later date), 29 dropped (8.3% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 19.8%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of EVSM compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: City of Los Angeles CA (1.13%), Bergen County Improvement Authority (The) (1.12%), Industrial Development Board of the City of Mobile Alabama (0.88%), Illinois Finance Authority (0.69%), Energy Northwest (0.66%), California Municipal Finance Authority (0.65%). Gone: Gulf Coast Industrial Development Authority (0.84%), Metropolitan Transportation Authority (0.73%), Utility Debt Securitization Authority (0.48%), Health & Educational Facilities Authority of the State o (0.46%), County of Delaware (0.40%), University of Minnesota (0.38%).

99.23% debt, 0.77% short-term investment as filed; 0.8% carried at a quoted market price (fair-value level 1). Categories and levels are the filer's; what a low level-1 share does and does not mean is in the measure's page.

Every measured debt fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of EVSM (234.7). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.