Looked at, and rejected.
Funds that have been through the audit and failed it. Every entry carries the reason, because a rejection without one is just an opinion about somebody's product.
Nothing is on it yet.
That is the honest state rather than a placeholder: no fund has been audited and rejected so far. An entry here is a published claim about a real company's product, so it goes on after the work is done, not before.
Funds we have data on but have not audited are on the grey list instead. Being unlisted is not a judgement.
What would put a fund here
Figures that will not reconcile against a second source. A distribution history too short to judge. Trading volume so thin that getting in and out costs more than the fee. A structure whose risks are not disclosed in what the fund publishes.
None of those are opinions about whether a fund will do well. They are statements about whether we can describe it accurately, which is a lower bar and the only one we are qualified to apply.
Three lists
The screener is what passed. The grey list is what we hold data on and have not audited. This is what failed. As at 2026-08-04.
Build your own dividend portfolio.
Combine funds to reach your target, see where their holdings quietly overlap, and get told when one you own cuts its distribution.