MGV 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: 100% at a quoted market price (level 1), one issuer country.

MGV's largest investment is Micron Tech at 5.26% of net assets. Jpmorgan Chase and Berkshire Hath-b follow; the three together are 12.05%. Ten companies are 28.31% of the fund; the other 115 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, MGV behaves like 64.5 holdings against a median of 42.4 — 1.5 times the median. Across 27 quarterly filings MGV has held roughly steady since 2019-11-30 (70.1 then, 64.5 now). Between the 2026-02-28 and 2026-05-31 filings 4 positions were added and 7 dropped; 9.6% of the weight moved.

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

Between 2019-11-30 and 2026-05-31, MGV went from behaving like 70.1 equally weighted positions to 64.5 — 8% fewer, while its top ten went from 27.28% to 28.31% 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 125 positions in MGV's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: MGV.csv.gz.

Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of MGV's own filings, 81 months on record. Not computed here and not from a price feed.

Cross-checked against a series computed separately from prices: median difference 0.04 percentage points over 81 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: MGV.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2022-08-31, $32m was out to 4 borrowers, 0.55% of net assets. The largest, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., held 95.1% of it.

Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.03% of net assets, 5.4% 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 MGV has filed, with each borrower: MGV.json · all funds.

125 positions became 122: 4 added (1.3% of the fund at the later date), 7 dropped (0.4% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 9.6%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of MGV compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: Salesforce Inc (0.41%), S&P Global Inc (0.30%), Newmont Corp (0.29%), Adobe Inc (0.26%). Gone: Zoetis Inc (0.13%), PayPal Holdings Inc (0.10%), Roper Technologies Inc (0.09%), Strategy Inc (0.04%), Paychex Inc (0.00%), MetLife Inc (0.00%).

99.63% equity, 0.37% short-term investment as filed; 100.0% 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.

A position count cannot describe a fund that uses derivatives, because a swap is filed at its unrealised gain, not its exposure. These are the notionals the fund itself reported, against net assets of $12.66B. Notional of an interest-rate or currency swap is not equity exposure.

Financing leg as filed: the fund pays OBFR01 + 0% on $48M of long swap notional . Issuers fill the spread field differently (some file the all-in rate), so compare within an issuer, not across.

Full detail for every fund that files derivatives: leverage.json (CC BY 4.0).

Every measured equity fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of MGV (64.5). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.