MGV(MGV)
AI Look-Through Summary
AI GeneratedThe portfolio's sector allocation reveals a moderate bias towards growth-oriented sectors, with Technology and Financial Services comprising nearly 40% of the total weight. This is somewhat offset by a significant presence in Consumer Defensive names, which could provide some stability during market downturns. The Industrials sector also holds a notable share, suggesting exposure to cyclical trends. Notably, the Energy sector is underrepresented.
The top holdings list reveals a mix of large-cap stalwarts and growth-oriented technology names. Microchip leader MU holds the largest weight, followed closely by JPMorgan and Berkshire Hathaway's B shares. The presence of these mega-caps suggests some level of market resilience, but also raises concerns about concentration risk. In terms of sector exposure, this portfolio is more skewed towards Technology and Financial Services than the broader market, which may be beneficial in a growth-oriented environment but could be less favorable during periods of economic contraction or market volatility.
Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-07-14 08:35:41.449629+00
🔍 Theme Alignment Audit
AI GeneratedPurity: 25/100The investment theme implied by the ticker MGV is Mass Affluent, yet the actual holdings display a distinct lack of thematic coherence. The portfolio is heavily anchored in mega-cap giants across diverse sectors such as financial services, healthcare, and consumer defensives, including major players like JPMorgan Chase, Berkshire Hathaway, and Johnson & Johnson. These constituents represent broad market leaders rather than specific vehicles targeting mass affluent growth or value strategies. Consequently, the fund appears to utilize large, stable names to ensure liquidity and reduce volatility, effectively functioning as a proxy for a diversified broad-market index rather than maintaining a focused strategy on its stated demographic theme.
Sector weights further illustrate this divergence from a specialized thematic approach. With significant allocations to Financial Services at 22.7% and Healthcare at 16.5%, the portfolio mirrors the composition of general large-cap benchmarks like the S&P 500 rather than isolating specific mass affluent opportunities. While the top-ten concentration remains relatively low at 26.9%, suggesting a wide dispersion across many holdings, this breadth comes from including unrelated industries such as utilities and basic materials alongside core sectors. The fund lacks clear differentiation from standard market indices due to its reliance on established industry leaders that do not exclusively serve or benefit from the mass affluent investment thesis implied by its name.
AI analysis of holdings alignment vs fund theme. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-21 10:55:52.522877+00
🏢 Sector Analysis
AI GeneratedThe MGV ETF exhibits a distinct tilt toward large-cap value characteristics, evidenced by the substantial weightings in Financial Services and Healthcare sectors which collectively comprise over 39% of the portfolio. This heavy allocation to these defensive yet income-generating industries suggests an investment thesis prioritizing stability and established market leaders rather than high-growth potential found elsewhere. The presence of major holdings like JPMorgan Chase and Berkshire Hathaway reinforces this focus on dominant industry players, indicating that the fund seeks exposure to companies with significant pricing power and resilient balance sheets during periods of economic uncertainty or volatility.
Concentration risk remains a notable feature of this allocation strategy, as demonstrated by the top ten holdings accounting for nearly 27% of total assets under management. While diversification exists across twelve sectors, the reliance on just five stocks to drive more than one-quarter of returns creates inherent sensitivity to the performance of specific mega-cap entities within the financial and energy domains. This structure implies that broad market beta is less relevant here compared to idiosyncratic risk associated with these individual giants; consequently, portfolio movements will likely mirror the fortunes of JPM, BRK.B, XOM, MU, and WMT more closely than a broadly diversified index would suggest.
Factor tilts appear heavily weighted toward value and low volatility rather than growth or momentum. The modest exposure to Technology at 14.1% contrasts sharply with its dominance in many modern equity indices, while the significant representation of Consumer Defensive stocks further supports a defensive stance. Although Energy holds a meaningful position at 6.5%, it does not dominate the profile as much as one might expect given current market cycles, suggesting a balanced approach within that sector rather than an aggressive bet on commodity prices. The overall composition reflects a strategy designed to capture returns from mature industries with predictable cash flows, potentially sacrificing some upside participation in emerging technological trends for greater capital preservation and downside protection.
AI-generated sector analysis from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-22 23:25:08.58296+00
Flow Driver Analysis
2-Step CircleWhich larger ETFs share MGV's holdings — and mechanically drive its price through index rebalancing flows?
Approximately 100% of MGV's weight flows through these larger ETFs
| Driver ETF | AUM | Expense | Shared Stocks | Weight Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VTIVanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares | $2.1T | 0.03% | 120 | 97.0% |
| VTVT | $80B | — | 120 | 97.0% |
| SPYState Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust | $640B | 0.09% | 119 | 95.9% |
| SPTMSPTM | $12B | — | 119 | 95.9% |
| VONEVONE | $10B | — | 119 | 95.9% |
97% of MGV's portfolio by weight is also held by VTI, which commands 184× more assets under management. When VTI receives inflows, it mechanically buys these shared stocks — dragging MGV's NAV along regardless of any thematic or sector catalyst. Combined, the top 5 overlapping ETFs control exposure to 100% ofMGV's weight.
Overlap computed from constituent-level holdings data across 5 ETFs. Price co-movement with driver ETFs is structural, not coincidental. Not investment advice.
ETF Look-Through Dashboard
Peer through the ETF wrapper to see exactly what you own. Every metric is computed from constituent-level data.
Weighted metrics calculated based on 99% of fund assets with available data.
Herfindahl-Hirschman Concentration Index
Morningstar-Style Box
Sector & Cap Explorer
ETF Fundamental Radar
Operational health is mixed, with the bulk of weight in the mid-range (4–6) Piotroski scores.
Piotroski F-Score (Operational Health)
Score 0-9: Measures Profitability, Leverage, and Efficiency
Based on 92% of fund weight with Piotroski data.
Computed by rolling up individual stock Piotroski F-Scores, Altman Z-Scores, and Beneish M-Scores weighted by each constituent's allocation.
Dividend Safety True-Up
DeterministicThe dividend-paying companies inside MGV collectively pay out 56% of their Free Cash Flow to maintain the current yield. This is a sustainable payout level with moderate room for dividend growth. Based on 75% of fund weight in dividend-paying stocks.
FCF Payout Ratio = Dividends Paid / Free Cash Flow, weighted by constituent allocation. Not investment advice.
Earnings vs. Price Decomposition
ProprietaryMGV is up 25.1% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +13.8%. The remaining +11.3% of performance is driven by multiple expansion (P/E inflation) — prices rose faster than earnings grew.
Earnings growth = weighted average YoY EPS growth of all constituents (capped at ±500% to limit outlier distortion). Based on 85% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.
Value Creation Map
ROIC vs WACCWhat percentage of MGV's weight is allocated to companies that create economic value (ROIC > WACC) vs. destroy it?
Of MGV's analyzed weight, 64% is invested in companies earning more than their cost of capital — genuine value creators. The remaining 36% consists of companies whose ROIC falls below their WACC, effectively destroying shareholder value with every dollar invested.
ROIC-WACC spread for 78% of fund weight with available data. Not investment advice.
Passive Crowding Score
MODERATEHow much of each constituent's market cap is structurally locked in passive ETFs — a proxy for liquidity fragility during sell-offs.
MGV has a Passive Crowding Score of 39/100. On average, 11.6% of the market capitalization of MGV's underlying holdings is structurally locked in passive ETF vehicles. This indicates moderate passive ownership density. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption activity can amplify short-term volatility in the underlying holdings.
Passive $ = Σ(ETF AUM × holding weight) across all 41 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds). Not investment advice.
Under the Hood — Top 15 Constituents
| # | Ticker | Company | Weight | P/E | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MU | Micron Technology Inc. Technology | 6.14% | 19.3x | 7/9 |
| 2 | JPM | JPMorgan Chase & Co. Financial Services | 3.86% | 14.7x | 3/9 |
| 3 | BRK.B | Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Class B Financial Services | 3.32% | 14.7x | — |
| 4 | JNJ | Johnson & Johnson Healthcare | 2.88% | 29.0x | 4/9 |
| 5 | WMT | Walmart Inc. Consumer Defensive | 2.34% | 40.5x | 7/9 |
| 6 | CAT | Caterpillar Inc. Industrials | 2.31% | 43.7x | 6/9 |
| 7 | ABBV | AbbVie Inc. Healthcare | 2.10% | 124.8x | 7/9 |
| 8 | CSCO | Cisco Systems Inc. Technology | 1.97% | 36.5x | 8/9 |
| 9 | COST | Costco Wholesale Corp. Consumer Defensive | 1.96% | 47.6x | 6/9 |
| 10 | GE | General Electric Co. Industrials | 1.84% | 40.8x | 6/9 |
| 11 | UNH | UnitedHealth Group Inc. Healthcare | 1.78% | 31.8x | 6/9 |
| 12 | BAC | Bank of America Corp. Financial Services | 1.72% | 14.2x | 5/9 |
| 13 | HD | Home Depot Inc. Consumer Cyclical | 1.66% | 24.7x | 4/9 |
| 14 | PG | Procter & Gamble Co. Consumer Defensive | 1.61% | 22.2x | 6/9 |
| 15 | MRK | Merck & Co. Inc. Healthcare | 1.50% | 36.0x | 4/9 |
Historical Holdings Snapshots
Browse how MGV’s holdings have changed across SEC filing dates. Showing top holdings per snapshot.
2026-07-18
15 holdings · 37.0% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MU | 6.14% | 708,818 | $818.2M |
| 2 | JPM | 3.86% | 1,571,673 | $514.5M |
| 3 | BRK.B | 3.32% | 882,957 | $441.8M |
| 4 | JNJ | 2.88% | 1,513,022 | $384.3M |
| 5 | WMT | 2.34% | 2,755,527 | $312.1M |
| 6 | CAT | 2.31% | 289,500 | $308.3M |
| 7 | ABBV | 2.10% | 1,110,490 | $279.4M |
| 8 | CSCO | 1.97% | 2,229,596 | $261.9M |
| 9 | COST | 1.96% | 278,850 | $260.9M |
| 10 | GE | 1.84% | 655,774 | $245.1M |
| 11 | UNH | 1.78% | 570,801 | $237.2M |
| 12 | BAC | 1.72% | 4,014,408 | $228.7M |
| 13 | HD | 1.66% | 626,722 | $221.0M |
| 14 | PG | 1.61% | 1,463,609 | $214.6M |
| 15 | MRK | 1.50% | 1,552,372 | $199.5M |
2026-07-17
15 holdings · 37.0% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MU | 6.14% | 708,818 | $818.2M |
| 2 | JPM | 3.86% | 1,571,673 | $514.5M |
| 3 | BRK.B | 3.32% | 882,957 | $441.8M |
| 4 | JNJ | 2.88% | 1,513,022 | $384.3M |
| 5 | WMT | 2.34% | 2,755,527 | $312.1M |
| 6 | CAT | 2.31% | 289,500 | $308.3M |
| 7 | ABBV | 2.10% | 1,110,490 | $279.4M |
| 8 | CSCO | 1.97% | 2,229,596 | $261.9M |
| 9 | COST | 1.96% | 278,850 | $260.9M |
| 10 | GE | 1.84% | 655,774 | $245.1M |
| 11 | UNH | 1.78% | 570,801 | $237.2M |
| 12 | BAC | 1.72% | 4,014,408 | $228.7M |
| 13 | HD | 1.66% | 626,722 | $221.0M |
| 14 | PG | 1.61% | 1,463,609 | $214.6M |
| 15 | MRK | 1.50% | 1,552,372 | $199.5M |
2026-07-16
15 holdings · 37.0% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MU | 6.14% | 708,818 | $818.2M |
| 2 | JPM | 3.86% | 1,571,673 | $514.5M |
| 3 | BRK.B | 3.32% | 882,957 | $441.8M |
| 4 | JNJ | 2.88% | 1,513,022 | $384.3M |
| 5 | WMT | 2.34% | 2,755,527 | $312.1M |
| 6 | CAT | 2.31% | 289,500 | $308.3M |
| 7 | ABBV | 2.10% | 1,110,490 | $279.4M |
| 8 | CSCO | 1.97% | 2,229,596 | $261.9M |
| 9 | COST | 1.96% | 278,850 | $260.9M |
| 10 | GE | 1.84% | 655,774 | $245.1M |
| 11 | UNH | 1.78% | 570,801 | $237.2M |
| 12 | BAC | 1.72% | 4,014,408 | $228.7M |
| 13 | HD | 1.66% | 626,722 | $221.0M |
| 14 | PG | 1.61% | 1,463,609 | $214.6M |
| 15 | MRK | 1.50% | 1,552,372 | $199.5M |
2026-07-15
15 holdings · 36.8% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MU | 5.26% | 685,356 | $665.5M |
| 2 | JPM | 3.64% | 1,539,832 | $460.9M |
| 3 | BRK.B | 3.15% | 840,586 | $398.8M |
| 4 | XOM | 2.91% | 2,537,286 | $368.6M |
| 5 | JNJ | 2.61% | 1,467,468 | $330.7M |
| 6 | WMT | 2.44% | 2,669,317 | $309.0M |
| 7 | INTC | 2.20% | 2,433,300 | $279.1M |
| 8 | CSCO | 2.06% | 2,164,704 | $260.7M |
| 9 | COST | 2.04% | 270,285 | $258.5M |
| 10 | CAT | 1.96% | 283,327 | $248.2M |
| 11 | ABBV | 1.85% | 1,076,694 | $234.4M |
| 12 | AMAT | 1.72% | 483,257 | $217.5M |
| 13 | CVX | 1.66% | 1,154,300 | $210.6M |
| 14 | UNH | 1.66% | 551,597 | $209.8M |
| 15 | PG | 1.61% | 1,415,164 | $203.2M |
2026-07-14
15 holdings · 36.8% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MU | 5.26% | 685,356 | $665.5M |
| 2 | JPM | 3.64% | 1,539,832 | $460.9M |
| 3 | BRK.B | 3.15% | 840,586 | $398.8M |
| 4 | XOM | 2.91% | 2,537,286 | $368.6M |
| 5 | JNJ | 2.61% | 1,467,468 | $330.7M |
| 6 | WMT | 2.44% | 2,669,317 | $309.0M |
| 7 | INTC | 2.20% | 2,433,300 | $279.1M |
| 8 | CSCO | 2.06% | 2,164,704 | $260.7M |
| 9 | COST | 2.04% | 270,285 | $258.5M |
| 10 | CAT | 1.96% | 283,327 | $248.2M |
| 11 | ABBV | 1.85% | 1,076,694 | $234.4M |
| 12 | AMAT | 1.72% | 483,257 | $217.5M |
| 13 | UNH | 1.66% | 551,597 | $209.8M |
| 14 | CVX | 1.66% | 1,154,300 | $210.6M |
| 15 | PG | 1.61% | 1,415,164 | $203.2M |
2026-07-13
15 holdings · 36.8% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MU | 5.26% | 685,356 | $665.5M |
| 2 | JPM | 3.64% | 1,539,832 | $460.9M |
| 3 | BRK.B | 3.15% | 840,586 | $398.8M |
| 4 | XOM | 2.91% | 2,537,286 | $368.6M |
| 5 | JNJ | 2.61% | 1,467,468 | $330.7M |
| 6 | WMT | 2.44% | 2,669,317 | $309.0M |
| 7 | INTC | 2.20% | 2,433,300 | $279.1M |
| 8 | CSCO | 2.06% | 2,164,704 | $260.7M |
| 9 | COST | 2.04% | 270,285 | $258.5M |
| 10 | CAT | 1.96% | 283,327 | $248.2M |
| 11 | ABBV | 1.85% | 1,076,694 | $234.4M |
| 12 | AMAT | 1.72% | 483,257 | $217.5M |
| 13 | CVX | 1.66% | 1,154,300 | $210.6M |
| 14 | UNH | 1.66% | 551,597 | $209.8M |
| 15 | PG | 1.61% | 1,415,164 | $203.2M |
Source: SEC filings and fund provider disclosures. Shows last 6 snapshot dates, top 15 holdings per date by weight.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Computed from 1,200+ trading days with 5% risk-free rate.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
What Drove MGV Today?
Daily return attribution — which holdings contributed most (and least) to the fund's move.
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedThe current trading level of $148.75 for MGV presents a snapshot where price action sits in isolation, as the provided dataset lacks critical context regarding recent drawdowns, volatility metrics, or fundamental catalysts necessary to assess risk dynamics. Without historical performance data showing how deep previous corrections have run or what standard deviation levels characterize its trading range, it is impossible to determine if the present momentum represents a structural shift driven by sustained demand or a fragile accumulation phase prone to sharp reversals. The absence of volatility indicators leaves open the question of whether price movements are being contained within tight bands typical of low-risk environments or if they reflect erratic swings often associated with heightened uncertainty in the underlying business model. Furthermore, the lack of information on recent earnings surprises, sector headwinds, or macroeconomic pressures prevents a meaningful connection between the stock's current valuation and its fundamental backdrop. In an ideal risk assessment framework, one would examine whether the price at $148.75 has decoupled from intrinsic value due to speculative fervor or if it reflects a rational repricing of future cash flows under stress. Since these variables are missing, any interpretation of momentum remains purely descriptive rather than predictive; observers cannot ascertain if upward pressure is supported by robust institutional buying or merely short-term liquidity imbalances that could evaporate quickly. Consequently, the technical picture appears incomplete regarding risk dynamics, offering no clear signal as to whether the asset's trajectory is anchored in long-term value creation or susceptible to sudden
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the ETF's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Yield & Income
Sector Drift Over Time
How MGV’s sector allocation has shifted across snapshots. Use the slider to travel through time.
Active Conviction Tracker
Shares bought and sold between the latest two data snapshots — reveals what the fund manager is actually doing.
Explore More
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-07-17.
SecuritiesDB is for informational purposes only. Not investment advice.