Verdicts genuinely change. Free email alert the moment MBERX's does — no target price to set, unlike "Alert" above.
Whether this fund clears the published standards, and the filings behind that answer. The screen runs first and nothing on the trading side can override it.
Structure, momentum, positioning and levels. Separate from the Sharia verdict above, which this side never overrides.
NYLIM Balanced Fund · NYLIM FUNDS TRUST
251 holdings
NON-COMPLIANT 48.44% of portfolio weight is in non-compliant holdings, over the 5% threshold.
11.82% of that is conventional interest-bearing debt, identified from the fund's own filing rather than by screening an issuer. Sukuk are deliberately excluded from this test and are never counted here.
251 holdings, 122 matched (78% of weight). Portfolio as of 2026-07-31, filed 2026-09-23. Source: SEC Form N-PORT.
2.83% of this portfolio’s income is non-permissible — weighted across holdings, computed over 56% of portfolio weight (83 of 251 holdings). The common approach purifies that proportion of income received — dividends — not of the position’s value. We report the ratio; what to do with it is a question for your own scholar.
24.4% compliant 5.2% questionable 48.4% non-compliant 21.6% unscreened
| Holding | Status | Weight | Every methodology, and the debt ratio behind it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. | UNSCREENED | 0.02% | no in-house ratios for this holding |
The published standards disagree about this fund by 8 points of portfolio weight — 34.1% of it passes Dow Jones Islamic, 26.3% passes Usmani. Which number is yours depends on which standard you follow.
These bars are the financial-ratio result under each standard — debt, receivables and interest income. They do not screen what the business does, so a holding can pass every ratio here and still be questionable or non-compliant on activity. The blended verdict above accounts for both.
ratios pass on 33.3% ratios fail on 24.7% 41.6% not rated under AAOIFI
ratios pass on 26.3% ratios fail on 29.0% 44.3% not rated under Usmani
ratios pass on 34.1% ratios fail on 23.9% 41.7% not rated under Dow Jones Islamic
ratios pass on 34.0% ratios fail on 23.9% 41.7% not rated under S&P Shariah
ratios pass on 28.1% ratios fail on 27.5% 44.0% not rated under MSCI Islamic
ratios pass on 34.0% ratios fail on 23.9% 41.7% not rated under MSCI Islamic M-Series
ratios pass on 31.7% ratios fail on 23.8% 44.1% not rated under FTSE Shariah
100 of 251 listed holdings carry our own per-methodology verdicts (66% of weight). The rest hold a provider verdict with no methodology breakdown, and are counted as rated by none. Of those, 84 (59% of weight) also carry the underlying debt ratio; the rest show a verdict without the figure behind it.
| Non-compliant holding | Weight |
|---|---|
| United States of America | 3.29% |
| United States of America | 3.01% |
| JPM JPMorgan Chase & Co. | 2.27% |
| United States of America | 2.18% |
| United States of America | 1.73% |
| UNH UnitedHealth Group, Inc. | 1.39% |
| ELV Elevance Health, Inc. | 1.14% |
| ICE Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. | 1.12% |
| PGR Progressive Corp. (The) | 1.04% |
| LPLA LPL Financial Holdings, Inc. | 1.04% |
Whether the technical picture shows an edge right now. Separate from the Sharia verdict, which this side never overrides.
NYLIM Balanced Fund (MBERX) is currently considered not halal (non-compliant), per our own look-through to its filed holdings. See its filed holdings and the weight breakdown below for the reasoning.
HTR reads the fund's filed holdings and screens each one, then reports the result by weight. A holding it cannot cover far enough is reported as unrated rather than counted as a pass.
| Holding | Weight | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp. | 4.19% | Questionable |
| iShares Intermediate Government/Credit Bond ETFnot matched to a ticker | 3.73% | Not screened |
| Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETFnot matched to a ticker | 3.58% | Not screened |
| United States of Americanot matched to a ticker | 3.29% | Non-compliant |
| United States of Americanot matched to a ticker | 3.01% | Non-compliant |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co. | 2.27% | Non-compliant |
| United States of Americanot matched to a ticker | 2.18% | Non-compliant |
| Vanguard Russell 1000 Valuenot matched to a ticker | 1.84% | Not screened |
| United States of Americanot matched to a ticker | 1.73% | Non-compliant |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 1.70% | Compliant |
Top 10 of 251 holdings, 27.5% of the fund by weight. Every holding is screened, not only these.
The positions keeping this fund short of 100% compliant by weight.
Verdict history for MBERX. A verdict that never moved is recorded too, so a quiet history reads as measured rather than missing.
ℹ️ no compliance scan has run for 6 days - this is not a reading of today
Pinch or scroll to zoom · drag to pan — both axes move · double-click to reset
This fund prices once a day, so its bars carry no intraday high or low — floor-trader pivots are not defined for it.
The range is measured volatility (ATR over the horizon), not a target — a wider band means a more volatile asset, not a stronger view. The direction is the indicator tally below. Every forecast is recorded when made and scored against the real price when it comes due, including the wrong ones. Not a recommendation, and not a fatwa.
Standard indicator thresholds (RSI 30/70, Stochastic 20/80, CCI ±100, Williams %R −80/−20, MACD histogram sign, price vs. average) computed on daily bars. A summary of what common indicators say — not a recommendation, and not this site's own trading verdict.
| Indicator | Value | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.30 | NEUTRAL |
| Stochastic %K (14) | 100.00 | SELL |
| CCI (20) | 145.83 | SELL |
| Williams %R (14) | 0.00 | SELL |
| MACD (12,26,9) | 0.09 | BUY |
| ROC (10) | 2.31 | BUY |
| Momentum (10) | 0.76 | BUY |
| EMA (10) | 33.38 | BUY |
| SMA (10) | 33.34 | BUY |
| EMA (20) | 33.32 | BUY |
| SMA (20) | 33.16 | BUY |
| EMA (30) | 33.34 | BUY |
| SMA (30) | 33.25 | BUY |
| EMA (50) | 33.34 | BUY |
| SMA (50) | 33.57 | BUY |
| EMA (100) | 33.12 | BUY |
| SMA (100) | 33.26 | BUY |
| EMA (200) | 32.42 | BUY |
| SMA (200) | 32.46 | BUY |
Market structure by timeframe, read from real bars. A bias per timeframe rather than a forecast — timeframes disagreeing is information, not noise.
The questions worth asking about any verdict on this page, answered plainly.
No. HTR reads the fund's filed holdings and screens each one, then reports the result by weight. A fund marketed as Islamic still gets the same look-through as any other.
It is the share of the fund whose holdings HTR cannot cover far enough to rate. It is reported as unrated rather than counted as compliant, because a holding nobody screened should not look like one that passed.
It matters, and it is noted, but it does not replace the look-through. The board's judgement and the holdings screen are shown separately so you can see when they agree and when they do not.
When the fund files new holdings, and on a rolling basis besides. The date on the verdict above is the last time this fund was actually recomputed.
Open research, not a fatwa. HTR applies published screening standards to filings and publishes what they say, including when they disagree. Nothing here is financial advice or a recommendation to buy or sell. Verdicts can change when new filings land.
Same screen, different answers. Comparison is where the standards disagreeing becomes useful rather than confusing.
Peer screening computing — it will appear here on its own.
Plain-language summary of the evidence already on this page — the Sharia screen, structure, momentum, and order flow above. It explains the read; it doesn't make the call. Generated on demand (a live AI call), never run automatically.