@FD1000 That "Large Cap Blend" category data is also wrong for that period of history because it can not include survivor bias of all the funds that went out of business that far back and there were many. Of the ones that did survive__ MFS Massachusetts Investors Fund (MITTX) 1924.
Putnam Investors Fund (PINVX) 1925.
Pioneer Fund (PIODX) 1928.
Century Shares Fund (CENSX) 1928.--I suspect they must have had bonds in their portfolio for that. Dividends I'm sure helped but who would have the mental fortitude amd/or financial wherewithal to reinvest in the market when it falls like that? In other words, the data you're providing shows large-cap blend funds falling about 55% when the market fell 89%. That cannot be correct for a pure stock portfolio even if you factor in dividends, which I believe peaked at 14% during the Depression.

Now they tell me!!!!
This summary prospectus change just came in my email. It is very specific for just a summary prospectus. More than I can ever recall. Seems more appropriate in a commentary or letter from the fund rather than a summary prospectus.
March 23, 2020
This information supplements certain disclosures contained in the Summary Prospectus of the
AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund, dated August 1, 2019, and the Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) for the Funds, each dated August 1, 2019, as
supplemented January 24, 2020.
____________________________________________________________________
AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund - Only
The paragraph under the section of the AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund’s
Summary Prospectus and Prospectus entitled “FUND SUMMARY - Principal Risks of
Investing in the Fund – Liquidity Risk” is replaced in its entirety with the following:
Liquidity Risk. Liquidity risk exists when particular investments of the Fund would be difficult
to purchase or sell, possibly preventing the Fund from selling such illiquid securities at an
advantageous time or price, or possibly requiring the Fund to dispose of other investments at
unfavorable times or prices in order to satisfy its obligations. The global impact of the coronavirus
on the economic and financial markets have caused severe market dislocations and liquidity
constraints in fixed income markets including many of the securities the Fund holds. To satisfy
shareholder redemptions, it is more likely the Fund will be required to dispose of portfolio
investments at unfavorable prices compared to their intrinsic value.
All Funds
The section of the Funds’ Prospectus entitled “ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT
THE FUNDS’ PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND RELATED RISKS -
Principal and Non-Principal Investment Risks – Market Risk” is replaced with the following:
Market Risk. Overall market risks may also affect the value of the Fund. Factors such as domestic
economic growth and market conditions, interest rate levels and political events affect the
securities markets. Local, regional or global events such as war, acts of terrorism, the spread of
infectious illnesses or other public health issues, recessions and depressions, or other events could
have a significant impact on the Fund and its investments and could result in increased premiums
or discounts to the Fund’s net asset value, and may impair market liquidity, thereby increasing
liquidity risk. The Fund could lose money over short periods due to short-term market movements
and over longer periods during more prolonged market downturns. During a general market
downturn, multiple asset classes may be negatively affected. Changes in market conditions and
interest rates can have the same impact on all types of securities and instruments. In times of severe
market disruptions you could lose your entire investment.
An outbreak of infectious respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus known as COVID-19
was first detected in China in December 2019 and has now been detected globally. This
coronavirus has resulted in travel restrictions, closed international borders, enhanced health
screenings at ports of entry and elsewhere, disruption of and delays in healthcare service
preparation and delivery, prolonged quarantines, cancellations, supply chain disruptions, and
lower consumer demand, as well as general concern and uncertainty. The impact of COVID-19,
and other infectious illness outbreaks that may arise in the future, could adversely affect the
economies of many nations or the entire global economy, individual issuers and capital markets in
ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen. In addition, the impact of infectious illnesses in emerging
market countries may be greater due to generally less established healthcare systems. Public health
crises caused by the COVID-19 outbreak may exacerbate other pre-existing political, social and
economic risks in certain countries or globally. The duration of the COVID-19 outbreak and its
effects cannot be determined with certainty.

Here is a little more detail on the types of high yield bonds and about other financial products the Fed will now be buying:

In a move that surprised some investors, the central bank will also expand its bond-buying program to include debt that was investment-grade rated as of March 22 but was later downgraded to no lower than BB-, or three levels into high yield. It’ll also buy exchange-traded funds, the preponderance of which will track investment-grade debt along with some that track speculative-grade debt. Together, the programs will support as much as $850 billion in credit.
.....as well as fund the purchases of some types of......collateralized loan obligations and commercial mortgage-backed securities.

https://washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/fed-to-buy-junk-bonds-and-lend-to-states-in-fresh-virus-support/2020/04/09/1baf9420-7a60-11ea-a311-adb1344719a9_story.html

@davidrmoran Not only what VOOG excludes but includes. Without doing too deep a dive, VOOG has a 32% weighting in tech stocks. VOO has a 21% weighting. Although I don't think VOOG breaks out sectors like the S&P 500, the tech sector isolated by itself from the S&P 500 has dramatically outperformed it since 2009: https://morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/xlk/performance
I would imagine this tech effect would be even greater in VOOG because it probably only owns the growthiest tech names, not the loser ones like Hewlett Packard all those years, the one tech company value managers found attractive. VOOG, for instance, has almost double the weighting of Amazon of VOO. RPV's tech weighting is a mere 2.3% and its financials is 34%. As I said above, the real story here isn't really just a growth versus value one. It's a tech sector versus financial sector one. To the extent that tech stocks are overvalued as some like Netflix I would argue are, the value managers will win. To the extent the financial services sector gets disintermediated by the tech sector--talk for instance of Amazon managing money soon or other tech companies doing banking--than the growth sector will win. The past ten years have been about Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Netflix ostensibly taking over the world. If you believe that trend continues, you go growth. If you don't, you go value or cash.

In announcing what may prove its most groundbreaking step in the crisis fight, Fed chair Jerome Powell said the Fed’s role had now broadened beyond its usual focus in keeping markets “liquid” and functioning, to helping the United States get the economic and financial space it needs to fix a dire health emergency.

https://reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fed-mainstreet/fed-rolls-out-2-3-trillion-to-backstop-main-street-local-governments-during-crisis-idUSKCN21R1WY

The Federal Reserve said it would buy some junk bonds in a package of announcements that could pump $2.3 trillion into the economy

https://nytimes.com/2020/04/09/business/economy/fed-to-buy-municipal-some-riskier-debt-as-part-of-expansive-programs.html

Concerns are being raised as QE Infinity begins to be implemented:

By pushing the Federal Reserve into corners of financial markets it has mostly shunned in its 106-year history, Chairman Jerome Powell is running into some thorny questions.
Like, for instance, how to maintain independence from the U.S. Treasury when the economic-support package Congress passed says they should work together? Or whether the same guidelines for companies receiving federal aid, which range from compensation limits to off-shoring restrictions, apply to the Fed if it gets more money from Treasury? And how about which companies -- and perhaps eventually, municipalities and states -- are invited to borrow and at what cost?
The Fed’s steps into credit allocation are tantamount to “a complete redesign of central banking on the fly.”
The CARES Act “forces the Fed into this almost intimate relationship with Treasury,” said Mark Spindel, co-author of a book about the relationship with Congress. “This is fiscal policy, picking winners and losers.”

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-09/powell-pushed-to-edge-of-fed-s-boundaries-in-fight-for-economy

Foomow up articles
Bonds funds with biggest net outflow ytd
https://www.financial-planning.com/list/coronavirus-lands-corporate-credit-atop-bond-fund-outflows-ranking-in-2020
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/etf-leaders/bond-funds-do-job-coronavirus-stock-market-crash/
With coronavirus uncertainties, corp bond etf has poorly performed in recent months. Many are heading toward exisiting doors/ running toward US-T.
The FEDS however recently backed these vehicles and bought huge junks/ corp bonds. Yields in junks much higher. Think investors maybe having second thoughts now before existing. 3rd/4th quarters may bring much better news and returns if economy recovery maybe taking shape

It was a bad month. The pandemic's economic impact is reminiscent of the financial crisis, only transpiring much faster. The world was unprepared. Hearing about "CV-19" at first seemed remote and contained, like the term "sub-prime mortgages." Then, all at once, it was everywhere and raging.
Just posted Damage Report.

I was surprised to see the content on a web-site geared to financial advisors. Shouldn't they know this stuff already?
I felt like showing it to my wife. But she has already conceded that there's no good point in paying somebody to tell you about, e.g., quality and liquidity.
And the way the market is shooting up makes me think there is still no end of complacency about current valuations.

https://www.financial-planning.com/news/financial-advisors-reassess-portfolios-in-the-wake-of-coronavirus-crisis
/What will portfolio construction look like when the threat of the coronavirus has diminished? While investment fundamentals such as asset allocation, diversification, rebalancing and risk management will remain pillars of financial advice, other areas of building portfolios are set to be reassessed in a changed economic landscape, according to financial advisors and investment professionals./
Advisors approaches to portfolio constructions perhaps starting with hy bond/cash as potential building blocks

The problem for D&C has long been its high weightings in financial services, i.e., banks. That was a big mistake going into the 2008 crisis and they deserved to be criticized for it. Yet I am not so sure it is a mistake in 2020's crisis. Banks are financially much stronger today than they were in 2008 thanks to regulatory reform requiring them to have higher capital requirements that is now unfortunately being sabotaged as every kind of regulation is being dismantled by this administration. I think many of the largest banks will come through this crisis in reasonable shape. So it could be a smart move to overweight them this time. But in 2008 it was a terrible one.

I do sometimes wonder when there are contentious posters who rarely comment on this board and then suddenly do to insult folks if some people don't have multiple identities here. I know it's happened before.
D&C has a number of positive traits analysts like--low fees, low turnover or trading costs, long tenured managers, carefully thought out products without an excess of launches, a lack of celebrity jerk managers from the team approach and consistency of style. All of that said, value has been a terrible place to be since the end of the 2008 crash. D&C are value managers and ones that sometimes take on more risk than they should, investing in particular in financial stocks that can suffer from leverage problems for instance. That is a value managers' bread and butter, but some competing value managers have done better with more of a quality overlay. High quality value--with less leverage and more consistent earnings--is not as cheap as "value classic," but it tends to hold up better in downturns.
Oh, regarding the S&P 500 fund(s), it most definitely isn't a value fund. The way it works is at the beginning of a bull market it has value characteristics and at the end of one it has growth characteristics as the largest most popular stocks dominate it. What it really is is a momentum fund, and when the momentum is positive as it has been for a long time until now, the most popular stocks get an increasingly large weighting and they are invariably the growthiest names. Comparing it to D&C most definitely is wrong.
The larger question that seems to get asked repeatedly on this board is is value investing dead? A better question I think is do you think the tech sector darlings that comprise the lion's share of growth indexes will continue to dominate the world forever or will other less popular sectors eventually make a comeback? The academics would have us believe that as the ur-factor bigger than JC in finance, it must eventually come back. But much of what constitutes financial academia is really weak science at best. There is a lot more evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and a significant portion of failed scientists/poor mathematicians and snakeoil salesmen in finance don't believe in that, yet do believe in the value factor or say they do to sell their actively managed higher cost products.

Can't claim the expense ratio card when VTV beat DODGX
D&C love financial and it costs them. That tells me they are stubborn instead of looking for better choices.
No, we don't question value, we question DODGX for short+long term. It's already 15 years that they fall behind the "stupid" VTV.
How can you make excuses for DODGX when this value fund was worse on the way up and much worse in market meltdowns
Well, why not make up a unique fund strategy such as the following...our goals are to invest mostly in LC but if we find good value in SC+MC we can use too...and this way nobody can compare our fund to anything ;-)
The whole idea of the SP500 is the fact that the best companies get to the top and why this simple "stupid" cheap brilliant idea works, so now you say, wait, no more, not fair...really?
But I always let the numbers talk, after all, numbers are more objective. I looked up MFO database for the last 10 years for LC value. For MFO,Sharpe,Martin rating DODGX ranks at 3 out of 5, there are so many better options. VTV=VIVAX is at the top ranking at 5.
VTV has better performance than DODGX from 1 to 15 years but also lower SD. VTV is based on "an indexing investment approach designed to track the performance of the CRSP US Large Cap Value Index" how can you defend thousands of hours of analysis fall short to an index? :-)
So, I'm expecting someone to post...well, if you look for 20-25-30 years then...nope, 15 years is long enough and year to date looks awful for DODGX. Sure, you can wait another 10 years and hope for better results.
BTW, do you expect the financial to get you back to even? :-)
Lastly, posters who defend DODGX probably own it.

I do sometimes wonder when there are contentious posters who rarely comment on this board and then suddenly do to insult folks if some people don't have multiple identities here. I know it's happened before.
D&C has a number of positive traits analysts like--low fees, low turnover or trading costs, long tenured managers, carefully thought out products without an excess of launches, a lack of celebrity jerk managers from the team approach and consistency of style. All of that said, value has been a terrible place to be since the end of the 2008 crash. D&C are value managers and ones that sometimes take on more risk than they should, investing in particular in financial stocks that can suffer from leverage problems for instance. That is a value managers' bread and butter, but some competing value managers have done better with more of a quality overlay. High quality value--with less leverage and more consistent earnings--is not as cheap as "value classic," but it tends to hold up better in downturns.
Oh, regarding the S&P 500 fund(s), it most definitely isn't a value fund. The way it works is at the beginning of a bull market it has value characteristics and at the end of one it has growth characteristics as the largest most popular stocks dominate it. What it really is is a momentum fund, and when the momentum is positive as it has been for a long time until now, the most popular stocks get an increasingly large weighting and they are invariably the growthiest names. Comparing it to D&C most definitely is wrong.
The larger question that seems to get asked repeatedly on this board is is value investing dead? A better question I think is do you think the tech sector darlings that comprise the lion's share of growth indexes will continue to dominate the world forever or will other less popular sectors eventually make a comeback? The academics would have us believe that as the ur-factor bigger than JC in finance, it must eventually come back. But much of what constitutes financial academia is really weak science at best. There is a lot more evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and a significant portion of failed scientists/poor mathematicians and snakeoil salesmen in finance don't believe in that, yet do believe in the value factor or say they do to sell their actively managed higher cost products.

Other than DODIX, I would not own any other D&C funds. I got burned by DODGX during the financial crisis in 2008 and vowed never to return once I got to a point where I felt comfortable selling. IMHO, they are operating on their past reputation pre-2008. I'm not surprised to see DODGX and DODFX doing worse than their respective categories during this current mess. There are plenty of better alternatives, IMHO.

Well put and what I have been saying for years. I think maybe D&C managers are more comfortable investing in financial/banking stocks which were their biggest category and not realizing this category has been lagging the SP500 while the high tech is where you have all the value+growth.

@davidrmoran: har, imagine saying of FAIRX, CGMFX, or even FMAGX that they were operating on their pre 08 rep

I used to own FAIRX,OAKBX,SGENX for about 7-8 years until 2009. In these years when I own a very high % in stocks, it fit my criteria for good risk/reward funds. PV (link) I don't believe in investing based on prior reputation.

Other than DODIX, I would not own any other D&C funds. I got burned by DODGX during the financial crisis in 2008 and vowed never to return once I got to a point where I felt comfortable selling. IMHO, they are operating on their past reputation pre-2008. I'm not surprised to see DODGX and DODFX doing worse than their respective categories during this current mess. There are plenty of better alternatives, IMHO.

Hi john
The private for profit health care system is imploding before our eyes. The vast majority of hospitals are on the brink of financial collapse because of their business model based on elective and bullshit surgeries and procedures. Hell, they're laying off like crazy AND Americans are dying.
Medicare for all or war.
And so it goes
Peace and Flatten the Curve
Rono

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C003-S002-stay-calm-amid-bond-market-chaos.html
/Stay Calm Amid Bond Market Chaos
The risk is that you’ll lock your money in a low-yield prison just in time for normalcy to return to the financial markets.
I won’t mince words: “Lower for longer,” my overriding view of fixed-income yields, is trending toward “lowest imaginable.” Expect the imminent return of zero, or near-zero, rates on money market funds, three- and six-month CDs, and bank deposits. Bonds with 4% and 5% coupons will be called in bunches by their issuers. Mortgage refis will cut the payouts from Ginnie Mae funds. More dividend erosion is in store for short- and intermediate-term bond funds./
Yields for vehicles mentioned in article so low
Maybe these are reasons investors may take higher risks to buy stocks....
Tread very carefully/don't catch falling knife especially with capital preservation portfolio

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/03/us/03reuters-health-coronavirus-municipals.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21L37G
/Coronavirus Fiscal Fallout on U.S. Muni Issuers Worries Investors
By Reuters
April 3, 2020
CHICAGO — Investors in the U.S. municipal bond market are growing increasingly worried over the ability of states, cities and other debt issuers to weather the financial fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus./
Article discusses covid19 nationalized shut down may cause major downturns and possible credit crunch due to limited/frozen states and local authorities lack of incomes. Muni bonds defaulting risks maybe much higher in the near future.
I think potus/congress/house maybe working to generate more bonds /govt bailouts to alleviate these stress in the near future.
More BAB anyone?

I realize that some of you may be mildly shocked when I say this, but by no means is all of this Trump's doing. It's been building for many, many years now, and the chickens that flew off have come home as swans. Here's a copy of something I just posted in another thread:

I have to concede that I was very much against the "offshoring" of such critical types of manufactures back in the 80's, and I've seen no reason to change my mind on that. In fact that's one of the few areas with which I basically agree with Mr. Trump. If it's non-critical to the safety, defense, or economy of the US, fine- manufacture it wherever is the cheapest. Otherwise, do it here!
If ever there was an example of the results from letting libertarian financial types and market capitalists run free, this is it. For years people of respectable credentials have pointed out the dangers involved, but no administration of either political party took notice or alarm. You need look no farther to observe the results of the lobbying and bribing of the Koch brothers and their bought and paid for Cato Institute. Those people have made their vast fortunes here in the United States, but have absolutely no loyalty to anything other than profit, no matter the damage to our country.

Indexes are one thing. Ditto large, passive ETFs. Transparent. US Treasuries.
I read a Dave Nadig interview recently about bond pricing. He likens it to Zillow. Especially precarious with lightly traded assets in an open-ended vehicle that must sell to meet redemption, which we've now seen, with awful results.
Last February, there were $6T in bond funds (about $4.5T in OEFs) and I understand in March, like $250B in redemptions.
While the risks in equities are clear and present, rapid 30% fluctuations, the risks in bond funds are not ... the lack of volatility providing (for some funds) false sense of security; therefore, more shocking the surprise when a crisis happens, which makes bond investors not used to drawdown, head for the door.
I see some bond funds like icebergs now.
Doesn't help (going forward) that we have had literally 40 years of falling interest rates. Which way will rates go from here? Nowhere I expect for a while. But when rates rise and all those bond funds fall, watch out.
And, when IG bond fund holding lots of BBB need to unload after downgrades in days/weeks ahead.
And, what happens when Fed stops buying corporate bonds?
So, sure, diversifier, but certainly not without their own set of serious risks (especially pricing risk) that probably needs to get more attention, likely more regulation. Glad financial media is talking more about it.
It's a really important lesson for me and I'm still processing how to reengage and be better for it.