Muddy waters claimed tal education overstated their income by over 43% over two years 2018
Due your own homework
Baseball fan

I share JonG's conservatism, though mine is based on additional concerns.
The fund is submanaged by Orange Investment Advisors. The day-to-day managers of the fund are the Orange ones: Jay Menozzi and Boris Peresechensky. Both came over from Semper where they worked together. IMHO that's the first clue about the kinds of risks one might expect with this fund. Not that SEMMX didn't do well when they were there, but that they may manage in a style (or part of the market) that does well until it doesn't.
Then there's the fund family James Alpha. A dozen funds, mostly in non-mainstream categories: Long Short Equity, Long Short Bond, Market Neutral, four Multialternatives, two Options Based, a Managed Futures. Then there's its largest fund, a Global Real Estate fund (80% of the family's AUM), and this one.
M*'s analysis of the family is consistent with what one might guess from this lineup. The family is a liquid-alt shop with expensive funds. Five funds were launched in 2017, and two others were liquidated in the past couple of years.
These are the reasons I would tread carefully.
Regarding the numeric comparisons:
- I don't find anything magical about 0% return; I would much rather have a fund that lost a quarter point in each of a few months and did well in the others than a fund that chugged along earning little in most months and never having a losing month.
- Until this year M* classified the fund as nontraditional. In comparing with its peers, are people comparing against its newfound peers or funds in its nearly lifetime category? For that matter, I have more general issues with comparing nontraditional funds, as that category is somewhat of a grab bag for funds that don't fit elsewhere.
- JASVX's 2019 return was 8.97%, per M*.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=JASVX
Its prospectus (and M*) report that the 2019 calendar year return for the cheaper (I) share class JSVIX was 7.31%. I get concerned when numbers that should be very similar aren't close. Needs more research.
https://info.jamesalphaadvisors.com/l/660023/2021-01-11/2d98t/660023/1610405927j8bMUFZj/2020_03_30_SAT_JA_Structured_Credit_Value_Port_Class_A_C_I_Final.pdf

@Derf
Open the link again and the very first ETF in the list today is QQQ. Click this to move to another Barchart page. This page has various data including the closing price at the top as well as post-market and pre-market "next day" pricing when available. Down the page is other information. To the right edge is a large green BUY for QQQ. Just below this you will find a "See More" box. This will move to another page with more technical data/indicators.
Also at the top of this QQQ example page is a quote box. You may place any valid ticker here to display the results. Save the page and "play".
NOTE: the green BUY for QQQ is the current technical/opinion indication. The box may range for STRONG SELL "red" to STRONG BUY "green".
Lastly, I do find value with the technical indicators, as this does show money flows via pricing; and I have to blend my own other observations of market/central bank and political actions . Example: We've invested in ZROZ (a zero coupon bond ETF) at various times over the years. Changes in the technical indicators have presented valid turning points for our buy or sell.

JASVX has a mix of structured credit. Per JAN-2021 Fact Sheet:
RMBS (26.4%)
CORP (18.9%)
CLO/CDO (16.3%)
Cash (14.4%)
CMBS (13.5%)
Govt (8.0%)
In it's short 30 month life, JASVX has had only 1 negative calendar month (-6.3% in March-2020).
Bucking the trend so far this year, it has managed a +2.6% return YTD. It had posted +9% and +13.7% returns in the prior 2 calendar years.
Would I be performance chasing if I slanted my Bond allocation towards this fund? Is this the type of fund that could easily implode if the U.S. housing situation falls apart?
Any comments appreciated.

That is not unexpected, as they were a great source of mutual fund advice when they first started, for a very reasonable fee. Several years ago they stopped publishing their NLFA newsletter and the only way you could get their advice was paying a 0.7% fee to manage mutual fund accounts. It is not surprising that adding 0.7% fee on top of mutual fund fees did not prompt large inflows.
Actually when they moved to separate managed accounts I went back and calculated the performance of their four portfolios and compared them to indexes. They usually managed to trail the asset allocation of indexes, but with some less volatility
They were a great firm to help me learn all the ins and outs of mutual funds and asset allocation.

Thanks @Crash - I think you are right! ... I LOVE Chateau Frontenac / Quebec but regrettably I have never been to Montreal and I hear that I am missing out! Perhaps when everyone is vaccinated and flights are allowed from the USA ... I will make it there some day. Eh? Cheers!
Hijack away... I'll up your Canadian bank with a US one ... that is only up 80 percent since IPO at $10 for bank customers and BTW IMHO has more room to grow in the next 2 years - when they can then purchase or be bought... EBC or Eastern Bank Corporation

I took just a small pinch of money from bonds and put it into PRIDX and PRDSX at the high. (Shit!) But I bet it will be a positive move, when we look back upon 2021. So, all I've done so far, is to bump-up my cost-basis. Groan. Glad I was prudent with the amount. Canadians say: "When the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold." Same with Emerg. Mkts. I think if I were you, I'd let those "losers" ride. When they become winners, you'll be glad... But needless to say, if after 2 years or so they do NOT start winning for you, then you'll have a decision to make. ...Eh?
@hank has shared that right now, "bonds are poison." Yes, I quite understand. Yet my long-term plan stops being a long-term plan if I react and make wholesale changes very often. For DIVIDENDS, rather than growth, the biggest Canadian banks would be first on my list. If they fall again sufficiently, it will surely pique my interest.
CM ..... Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
TD.... Toronto Dominion
RY Royal Bank of Canada
BNS.... Bank of Nova Scotia "Scotiabank."
BMO...... Bank of Montreal
oops, I just hijacked your thread.

Thanks for the discussion. I think this is the key point: "If one uses average basis, there is no choice in which shares were sold. They are sold oldest first."
The "mutual fund bifurcation" is correct, but it doesn't explicitly say whether it's IRS rules or convention the require it. One I redo the calculations that way, it's clear that that is what all my funds are doing: oldest shares are sold out of the noncovered bin first, until they are all gone, then the covered shares are sold. I'll just assume this is required by IRS rules.
For years I've just been keeping track of my average basis using a single bin. I've only liquidated two funds since the bifurcation rules started, and my results vs the funds have only been off by a few cents.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/business/stock-market-prices-bubble.html?searchResultPosition=1
*Making Sense of Elevated Stock Market Prices
Shares are very expensive, but so are bonds. Even at current prices, the economist Robert J. Shiller says, it is reasonable to keep some wealth in stocks.
By Robert J. Shiller
March 5, 2021
The stock market is already quite expensive. That is evident when you compare current stock valuations with those from previous eras.
But it is also true that stock prices are fairly reasonable right now.
That seemingly contradictory conclusion arises when you include other important factors: interest rates and inflation, which are both extremely low.
Examined on their own, stock valuations are at giddy levels, yet they are far more attractive when viewed side by side with bonds. That’s why it is so hard to determine whether the stock market is dangerously high or a relative bargain.
Consider that the S&P 500 index of U.S. stock prices has repeatedly set records over the past year, while a measure that I helped to create, the CAPE ratio for the S&P 500, is also at high levels.
In my view, the CAPE ratio is the more important of these two measures of overpricing because it corrects for inflation and long-term corporate earnings. John Campbell, now at Harvard University, and I defined CAPE in 1988. This is a bit technical, but please bear with me: The numerator is the stock price per share corrected for consumer price inflation, while the denominator is an average over the last 10 years of corporate reported earnings per share, also corrected for inflation.*
Not sure if you will be maybe happy with your equities portion if you stay long invested (perhaps 15 20 yrs later - if you can avoid major prolong anemic returns and market crashes)

Hi @LewisBraham et al
I hear you.
Heck, there have been too many times over the years having a chat with those who had not yet started any personal savings/investments via a 401k, 403b or IRA and ATTEMPT to explain what the stock/bond markets are and how they may benefit from an investment..............fully and completely based on historical patterns. The whole thing is really an interesting mystery of how markets may function, where to invest, etc.
Such face to face explanations are generally not so cut and dried as what one may find for a definition of stock market investing at Investopedia, eh?

I'm not debating the potential to profit off technology or technology stocks. But that technology is based on science, not religion. Economics is already called the "dismal science," because frankly its proofs are weak compared to the hard sciences and economic theories historically are made with limited data from emotional humans who do not at all behave like the hilariously out of date and unrealistic Homo Economicus most of the time. To throw religion into the mix in a tech fund unless it is specifically for some SRI or ESG purpose--i.e. my religious ethics tell me not to invest in X--seems to make an already dismal science even more dismal. And it seems morally dubious to rationalize pretty much any money management as a calling from God to me unless perhaps if you plan to give all of your profits to charity. To add Laffer's trickle down economics ideology to the mix regarding taxation when almost all of the data we do have indicates that Laffer's theories are wrong and have been wrong for forty years, yet persist as a rationalization for making the rich richer seems even more morally dubious to me. In other words, to put a holy gloss on this kind of pursuit is sadly ironic.

Hi @LewisBraham
I've read this previous, and that she also supported Trump; but to the aspect of the "tax laws" changes that were put in place during his term.
Covid, IMHO; pushed the disruption technologies forward faster than they might have traveled during normal market conditions.
I've remained a "tech" investor for many years, which continued to become more apparent to me over many years from my technology background. Thus, I continued to follow technology advancements and investments. A personal view of this was combined to "discover" a best of both worlds related to the "boomers" and technology; although medical technology is not strictly related to boomer medical. I still place favor towards an investment as FSMEX or a similar etf, IHI.
However, I remain fully open and aware to the some of the disruptive technology holdings found among the ARK funds. Some will flounder about and/or fail. But, I think the "themes" in place are fully valid. I/we do our best to remain informed. Conversations and questions to and with the under 40 age group helps to discover what impacts are taking place in the "financial tech." area. Hell, I/we still write some paper checks; but our first exposure with early "fin tech." was the payments we received via PayPal from our sales on eBay about 20 years ago when it was wholly owned by eBay; versus paper checks and/or VISA.
We remain in interesting times, eh?
Take care,
Catch

Hi @sma3

My sister who knows nothing about investing wants a conservative asset allocation fund in early retirement for an inheritance she doesn't need to live on.

I'll presume from your statement that: your sister is already in retirement and that her inheritance will be invested in a taxable account.
I noted the following a few days ago regarding a 529 account that was started in 2006 but could be applied to a taxable account, too:
>>>We set our own allocation, being 50/50 with VITPX and VBMPX. The expense ratio for the funds are .02 and .03%. VITPX holds 3,400 equities and VBMPX holds 18,000 bonds. YOW !!!
The 50/50 ratio is required to auto balance once per year. So, the ratio has never traveled to far outside of 50/50.
The 10 year total return for this blend of 2 funds is 8.705%.
I've used FBALX as a benchmark for our own investments to discover how much of a smart arse or dumb arse we may be at any given time. FBALX is high on the list of balanced funds in it's category.
FBALX has a 10 year annualized return of 10.83%. <<<
An equivalent to the above could be a simple 50/50 of SPY and AGG (or BAGIX, a plain vanilla active managed AA bond fund); OR whatever percentage mix an individual wants to choose for these two. The rough math indicates a 50/50 mix of the above to provide about a +8.45% blended total return for the past 10 years and +6.95% over the past 15 years.
My personal choice using AGG or BAGIX examples for bonds, would be the equity side into FSPHX or FSMEX for the 50/50 mix.
We individual investors find ourselves at an unfamiliar place recently, relative to the AAA bond sector. Although we have BAGIX as part of our portfolio, I/we don't know how much support/ballast will arrive during a greater than -20% equity dive, although I still feel central banks and large investment organizations would still run to AAA bonds during an equity melt.
NOTE: 50/50 of SPY (or an index) and AGG = -.4% YTD, VWINX = -.25% YTD and FBALX = +2.3% YTD.
I think your sister could have a decent risk and reward blend of no more than 3 holdings among bonds and equity to satisfy a meaningful performance portfolio.
Lastly, retirement finds too many variables for individuals/couples. If monetary needs are satisfied for the normal expenses, one's investments should still include equities, IMHO. Forty years of favorable bond returns are at a new place right now; and I surely don't know the forward road in this sector for a fully buy and hold portfolio.
Take care,
Catch

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-05/etfs-show-balance-is-shifting-in-favor-of-emerging-market-stocks
ETF Buyers Prefer Emerging Stocks Over U.S. Shares, Gold, Bonds
**Fund buying EM stocks heads for biggest inflows in two years
Earnings outlook, relative valuation back case for EM stocks
If capital flows into U.S. exchange-traded funds are any indication, investors have begun to favor emerging-market stocks over almost every other asset class -- including U.S. equities...
Another interesting idea, EM could be good vehicle to invest med long term

I agree with @Stillers in that “conservative allocation fund” might dictate something more conservative than many suggestions here for @sma3’s sister.
I’d begin by asking her how big a drawdown she’d be comfortable with over a 1-3-year period. If inclined to pull the money out after a 10% downdraft, than funds like PRWCX wouldn’t be a good choice. I think Giroux is a bit optimistic in his recent annual report when he states his fund’s second goal: “Preserve shareholder capital over the intermediate term (i.e., three years)” - But hats-off to a manager willing to be that specific. Not many are.
In looking forward to the day when I may no longer want to monitor, or even think about, my investments, I have my eyes set on PRSIX. Recently opened a small position in the fund. Yes - bond holdings in any fund are concerning. The good managers, however, diversify those into varying durations, varying credit risk and EM markets. Some employ hedging tactics as well. So don’t judge the book by its cover.

Hi Jon. Nope. But that's a good one. For example, new GOs, old GOs. Ditto with Three Alarm. Perhaps last month's MFO Rating? Will noodle.
In this month's update, I notice DODIX is back as a GO, after a short hiatus.
There is a lot of historical info, like Calendar Year ratings, back to 1960, as applicable. And, some unique evaluation period, like listed below, which may provide some insight.
Another subscriber recently asked about a metric that evaluated near-term (like 3 month trend) versus long term (like 5-10 years), which I find interesting.
Thank you though for the suggestion ... subscribers get a month free each time they offer a good suggestion or catch something amiss.
c
Some unique evalation period on MFO Premium's MultiSearch tool:
Full 1 [Vietnam] - 196812 To 197212
Full 2 [OPEC-Reagan] - 197301 To 198708
Full 3 [Black Monday-Clinton] - 198709 To 200008
Full 4 [Dotcom Bubble] - 200009 To 200710
Full 5 [GFC] - 200711 To 201912
Full 6 [CV-19] - 202001 To 202101
QE 1 - 200812 To 201003
QE 2 - 201206 To 201312
Normalization - 201601 To 201812
ZIRP - 200812 To 201512
Obama Bull - 200903 To 201612
Trump Bump - 201701 To 201912
Dec '18 Selloff - 201812 To 201812
CV-19 Bear - 202001 To 202003
QE Inf - 202004 To 202101
Irrational - 200003 To 202101

Not trying to have innuendo in my writing, sorry. I mean that I don’t think the invention of nuclear weapons was as beneficial for humanity as that of penicillin, yet the free market tends to treat these innovations equally or, worse, favors whichever one is more profitable to sell. The subtext to the notion that more regulation is bad for innovation is that all technological advancement is good and the government should just get out of the way. Also embedded is the idea that unregulated businesses themselves don’t try to stifle innovation when it hurts their bottom lines. We probably would’ve had the electric car fifty years ago were it not for the big auto and fossil fuel companies. Government officials in the U.S. are ostensibly elected by the people who may or may not want more regulation of certain technologies. CEOs are not elected by the people and often do as they please regarding technology so long as it makes them and shareholders money. If that means developing technology that manipulates you into buying certain products, voting for certain candidates and invading your privacy so be it. If it means creating technology that stifles innovation by smaller competitors also so be it.

@WABAC- I'd be surprised. Judging by his posting here for a number of years John is just a sucker for come-ons. If it's too good to be true, John will be among the first to bite.

“Many believe that the recent rise in US treasury yields has crept up on the Fed policy radar and that the natural next step for the Fed is to hint at and eventually deliver a yield curve control (YCC) policy ...”
Thanks @bee - I’m guessing that the government’s capping, controlling or limiting long term rates would work about as well as capping wages and prices did some years back. Inflation was at only 9% in ‘73 when the caps were imposed. Later in the decade it soared to well over 12%.
Nixon’s Wage & Price Freeze - 1973
The Fed and other central banks might achieve some control over longer rates by buying up large quantities of long dated bonds. That would push rates down temporarily. But how long could they keep it up?

Hope my light-hearted remarks above didn’t offend. I’ve owned TMSRX nearly from the start. You’ll do better in a low cost equity fund over a longer time period. But for those with shorter time horizons or who are skeptical of current equity valuations it’s a decent alternative. If you read the prospectus you’ll realize the fund pursues 5 (or more) different investing styles. Last time I checked, each approach was being managed by a different person. The fund’s goal is to make money in any kind of equity market. Up, down, sideways.
Derivatives? Of course. Shorts? Yes. Higher fees? Yes - but reasonable compared to peers. This is an area of investing where more funds fail than succeed. My modest investment rests partially on years of experience with T. Rowe and a belief that if anyone can make this approach work, they can. Notwithstanding the above - I fully expect the fund to experience some 5-10% down years.