VFH 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: 99.99% at a quoted market price (level 1), one issuer country.

VFH's largest investment is Jpmorgan Chase at 9.15% of net assets. Berkshire Hath-b and Mastercard Inc-a follow; the three together are 22.03%. Ten companies are 46.07% of the fund; the other 407 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, VFH behaves like 33.9 holdings against a median of 42.4 — close to the median. Across 27 quarterly filings VFH has held roughly steady since 2019-11-30 (33.5 then, 33.9 now). Between the 2026-02-28 and 2026-05-31 filings 2 positions were added and 5 dropped; 4.2% 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, VFH went from behaving like 33.5 equally weighted positions to 33.9 — 1% more, while its top ten went from 42.85% to 46.07% 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.

Measured against every other fund on this site, from the same filings. Combined effective holdings is how the pair behaves held in equal size.

The 15 largest of 417 positions in VFH's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: VFH.csv.gz.

Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of VFH'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 0.05 percentage points over 81 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: VFH.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-05-31, $6m was out to 7 borrowers, 0.05% of net assets. The largest, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, held 49.6% of it.

Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.04% of net assets, 86.8% 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 VFH has filed, with each borrower: VFH.json · all funds.

416 positions became 413: 2 added (0.1% of the fund at the later date), 5 dropped (0.1% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 4.2%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of VFH compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: Piper Sandler Cos (0.07%), N/A (0.01%). Gone: Piper Sandler Cos (0.06%), Heritage Commerce Corp (0.01%), Cantaloupe Inc (0.01%), Diamond Hill Investment Group Inc (0.01%), First Foundation Inc (0.01%).

96.30% equity, 3.69% 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 $13.45B. Notional of an interest-rate or currency swap is not equity exposure.

Financing leg as filed: the fund pays OBFR01 + 0% on $498M 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 VFH (33.9). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• XLF vs VFH: Financial-Sector ETFs in a Rate-Cut Cycle — What Actually Drives Returns

  Over the trailing five and ten years, XLF and VFH delivered almost identical returns and drawdowns — the 1 basis point fee gap and the difference in...

  18 Jul 2026 9 min ETF Analysis