Don’t forget the most important part of the fund.
The 49% leverage and the huge position in swaps.
With the recent spike in the 10 year and if the rise in interest rates continues, the higher borrowing costs will be detrimental to this funds huge position in leverage.
Do your own due diligence on this fund.

Absolutely do your own diligence. First, we don't know how long or how high the leverage has been. Second, the 10 year was much higher years ago and the fund did OK too. Third, the manager has been using short positions too. Per M* fund holdings I can see 2 positions at -10.03% and -9.89
I found the semi-annual report from 3/31/2020 (link)and more than 50% is in treasury bills, mutual funds about 30%, MM at 13.8%(maybe used for leverage).
===============
JD_co: that's correct, Ralph Doudera, also runs HFSAX/SFHYX which also has a good risk/reward, but the min is 1 million for HFSAX at Schwab and the other is only for institutional customers. I can still buy SVARX at $5000 min + $49.95 fee, but I can't buy the Ins SVASX, Schwab doesn't recognize it.
3 years performance/SD...HFSAX 14.5/7.6...SPY 14.1/18.7

The portfolio manager for SVARX, Ralph Doudera, also handles HFSAX. Mr. Doudera has a Masters degree in Biblical studies and also a Masters in Mgmt/Finance.
His funds have performed extremely well with limited volatility. SVARX has 3 and 5 year returns just over 10%, and its worst ever Quarter in 7 years was a -2.06% loss. Nice track record.

I only started following this fund in the last several months.
SVARX is a fund of other fixed income funds. The ER=2.95 is very high, but the results are very good. Several of these funds have ER of 1.5% already. BTW, in 03/2020 the fund lost less than 2% peak to trough. The risk-adjusted performance easily beat VBINX+VWIAX
As of 1/15/2020: (One year SD is from PortVis)
SVARX performance/SD...............1 year=23.4%/6.4.......3 year=10.4% annually/5.4.....5 year=11.4% annually/4.9.
VBINX (60/40) performance/SD.....1 year=23.4%/16.8.....3 year=11.2% annually/11.9...5 year=11.15 annually/9.7.
VWIAX (40/60) performance/SD.....1 year=23.4%/11.55...3 year=7.2% annually/7.7......5 year=8.0% annually/6.3.
When you look at their (site) they do a good job not to mention the fact they invest in other fixed income funds.
Their top funds from M* as of 9/30/2020 are and by now it's probably different :)
IOFIX=special securitized
NHYIX=HY
Recv Nuveen Prf Secs Inc
Pimco Govt Mm Instl
BDKNX=special securitized
Eaton Vance Floating=bank loans
Ishares Tr Pfd Inc S (-10%)
CMOYX=CLMAX=special securitized
The yield is low under 1% for 2020 and about 3-3.5% for 2019 and about 2.5% in 2018.
So, if you are looking for a good risk/reward fund, maybe that's the one. See one year (chart) and change to 3-5.
===================
I'm not sure what the managers of SVARX are doing, but I managed my own portfolio with the following goals: making more than 6% annually, never losing more than 3% from any last top, SD under 3. In the last 3 years, since retirement in 2018, I have used mainly bond funds with several very short term (hours-days) of stocks/ETF/CEFs, usually very concentrated in 2-3 bond OEFs, using momentum and switching between best performing funds but also selling to cash when risk is very high as I did in Q4/2018 and Q1/2020. My portfolio risk-adjusted performance below as of 12/31/2020 are actually even better. Directly from Schwab, you can see below that SD=2.3 for both one and three years. The portfolio never lost more than 1% from any last top during 2018-2020.

I have invested in ARTRX for several years - a very consistent fund with a reasonable drawdown in 2020. The manager has been running the func since inception - quite remarkable. Covers all developed global markets without emerging market exposure. I use separate funds dedicated to emerging market. The same management team also have a newer global fund that has some EM but this fund adds another 0.30% to the expense ratio.

somewhat OT, and you have get past the wack lede, but an interesting thing to know maybe for investing outside the US
https://humbledollar.com/2021/01/lost-abroad/

Methinks he doth protest too much. Foreign tax credits can be carried back one year and forward ten years, so he may not have lost his tax credit as much as he would like you to believe he did. I've carried forward and later used foreign tax credits.
Basically, you can't take a credit now for foreign taxes paid at a higher rate than your current overall (not marginal) US rate. For example, suppose you owe $10K in taxes on $100K of taxable income (10%). If $20K of that income was foreign, and you paid $3000 in foreign taxes (15%), you could take a credit now for $2000 (10%) and carry over the remaining $1000 to use in future years.
The way the IRS describes it is different but amounts to the same thing:

Your foreign tax credit cannot be more than your total U.S. tax liability ... multiplied by a fraction. The numerator of the fraction is your taxable income from sources outside the United States. The denominator is your total taxable income from U.S. and foreign sources.

More important than his self pity ("It all seemed very personal") is whether your mutual fund passes through foreign taxes to you. The way funds generally work is that they pay for expenses (management fees and yes, taxes) out of earnings and pay you the net earnings as divs. The income you see on your 1040 is the usually the net income.
But sometimes, even though you're only getting net divs, the funds pretend that you got extra income and it was you, not the fund, that paid those foreign taxes with that extra income. So you might have $500 in "real" dividends, but on your 1099 you see $550 in divs and $50 in foreign taxes paid.
The question is: which funds pass through foreign taxes to you? A fund must make an election to pass through the taxes. They can't do so unless "more than 50 percent of the value ... of [the fund's] assets at the close of the taxable year consists of stock or securities in foreign corporations." 26 U.S. Code § 853(a)(1)
Generally, global funds don't make this election because they either typically have less than 50% invested abroad or because their portfolio could be near 50% and they want to be clear to investors. (Currently, M* shows 46/246 large cap world stock funds with over 50% non-US stocks.)
Somewhat surprisingly (to me) a number of international funds also decide not to pass through foreign taxes.

Zweig cautions that these funds are as risky as story stocks and cites research that showed that thematic funds underperformed conventional funds over time by about 0.5% per month.

As may be, but you have to admit that it'll take a good long time for the ARK funds to devolve to meet that 'standard'; unless there is a HUGE swoon for pretty much everything over a couple of years. Not discounting what you're saying, but they DO have a substantial lead at this point...

Yes, the fund dropped 60%, and yes it held mortgage bond insurance companies other than MBI. Yes, it was painful. But it wasn't that much worse than the typical LCV fund. Here's a chart for peak to trough of the fund 10/11/07 to 3/9/09.
It lost 61.34%. A LCV index fund (VVIAX) lost 58.97%. TAVFX did worse, sure. A lot worse? No. If you want to use the word "implode", it's the value side of the market that imploded. "Value trap" implies active stock selection, but passive management did just about as poorly. Whitman made some mistakes but he must have made a number of good calls as well to have come out average.
Meanwhile, TAVFX's cumulative 10-year returns are less than one-fifth the broad market's.
That's the post-Whitman era, which was my original point. He resigned as CIO over a decade ago, and as manager of TAVFX nine years ago. Without Whitman the fund has indeed turned in an absolutely abysmal performance - bottom 3% (though not quite as small as 1/5, closer to 1/3 as much total gain as that of the entire equity market). A whole lot worse on a relative basis than Whitman did before, during, and after the housing crisis.
Regarding the particular mortgage bond insurers it held between Oct 2007 and March 2009, does it really matter? In Oct 2007 MBI constituted 64% of these holdings. FWIW, Radian (which M* says was primarily in other businesses) constituted 27%. The rest was noise.
I recall that Whitman was involved in public disputes with another investor who was shorting that industry
From the NYTimes (repeating a link from above):

“MBIA is being victimized by an apparently well organized bear raid headed by William Ackman of Pershing Square Capital Management,” Mr. Whitman wrote.

Interesting read... Last post was 2016 but guess which suggestion looks terrific after 4 years? PRBLX and DSENX Nicely done @davidrmoran @benwp

There's no question that he was way wrong about mortgage insurance companies. However, despite this moderate sized bet, the fund performed respectably before and during the housing crisis.
Let's put some dates and numbers to paper. MBI would seem to be a good proxy for his investments in the mortgage insurance business (what in the annual statements is counted in "Financial Insurance/Credit Enhancement").
Oct 31, 2008: 3.57% of portfolio in financial ins., all MBI.
Oct 31,2007: 3.95% in financial ins., 64% of that in MBI.
Oct 31, 2006: 3.55% in financial ins., 65% of that in MBI.
I'm not going back further. MBI's stock price peaked just before the end of 2006 (Dec 28 close of 73.31 per Yahoo). "In 2007, home prices started to tumble." NPR.
From Dec 28, 2006 to March 5, 2008 (the low point for MBI), TAVFX outperformed the average large cap value fund by over 2% (not annualized) while underperforming VEIRX by about 1%.
M* chart.
In January 2008 the fund owned about 10% of MBI. That mistake by Whitman of doubling down brought its percentage of the fund's portfolio to around 5% (end of January N-Q). With the stock declining from his purchase price of $12.15 to a low of $2.29 on March 5, 2008 the position contributed around -4% to the fund's performance. Since then, MBI has gently risen in price.
Though his bets on mortgage insurers had a measurable impact on fund performance, bringing down a once superior fund to an average performing one, they did not seem to be the cause of the subsequent "implosion". That came later.
The fund started to underperform in the 2nd half of 2008, well after MBI had stabilized. Even at that, it had its moments and performed in line with large cap value funds until just a few months before Whitman resigned as manager, March 3, 2012.
M* chart 2008-March 3, 2012.

What would be the purpose ultimately? You would bail or add depending on something you saw? Really?
And you probably would do that anyway depending on performance over timespan (which for many investors has gotten shorter and shorter over the years).
I do agree that it is helpful to know what you got into, but you should have done that anyway, beforehand.
So what @Crash said. I want the chef to buy the ingredients and do the cooking and mixing or assembling. I eat the result. I am paying for the selection skills and judgment, and in the case of investment, tactics and decisions in response to circumstance.

Morningstar Portfolio Manager might be a good resource. It's a premium product, but some brokerage houses (such as T Rowe Price) offer it as a free benefit.
https://morningstar.com/help-center/user-guide/portfolio-manager
Also, determining how correlated your funds are to one another and the different sectors of the market is a worthwhile exploration. Morningstar again offers this tool in portfolio manager, but it can be found for free here (for stocks, ETFs, and indexes).
https://unicornbay.com/tools/asset-correlations
Here's an Asset Correlation Map (last 10 years):
https://guggenheiminvestments.com/mutual-funds/resources/interactive-tools/asset-class-correlation-map

@JonGaltlll: As much as I like ARTYX, I have 10% of my IRA already in there. Figured I would try a pure EM fund. MDDCX has good short term results after change in managers a couple years ago. ARTYX is incredible and hope it keeps going.

I did not use Roth. I went with Trad. IRA. It has worked out nicely--- apart from the $5,000 in non-deductible contributions I made--- since in those years, I owed no tax to deduct the contributions against. (Who would have ever dreamed?) But my tax guy is great. Eventually, we WILL get back that $$$, non-taxable. I'm not in a hurry. Our present living circumstances are rather comfortable.

By now TRP should able fully geared to work from home. Customer support can be done with broadband connection. That how IT support is being done.
I performed asset transfer online at Fidelity last week and it was completed in 5 days. As I recall, TRP requires signed paper forms several years ago. If that is the case, it is likely sitting in their Maryland office.

I'm not saying they aren't fully geared to work from home. That I'm sure is true. However, the employees simply are not as engaged when working from home (some are, but I think it'd be naïve to think all employees are just as productive in a WFH environment). If you ask any employer how the WFH experience has been, of course they are going to say it's been relatively seamless and the team just as efficient, however, that is for optics. It is not what is actually occurring for many organizations.

@bee, I have to do a similar IRA transfer with TRP several years ago and it took 4 weeks to complete. They follow all the rules and paper forms were required instead of electronically as in Fidelity. Don't know if this changed recently. Nothing wrong with their practice but TRP is being careful. Vanguard requires paper forms too but initial transfer request is done online and turnaround time is 2 weeks.
COVID situation is making many business operating from home. They could have operate split shifts to reduce worker density, especially their call centers. Wonder if there are other phone # you can call?

Agree. Bucket approach works well to ensure living expense for near term, 3-5 years. Shifting the gains from equity funds to the balanced funds make a solid approach in this low yield environment.

One gut check for investing in up markets is to reference your present portfolio value with different draw downs scenarios (in percentages) and the potential recovery time (in months/years)
S&P 500 data since WWII:
Here are a few charts to help illustrate my point (averaged 14% drop over 8 months)...frequency (33% of the time):
Corrections:

Bear Markets (averaged over a 32% drop over 3 years 2months)...frequency (20% of the time):

Another view of drops from S&P 500 Highs and the subsequent time to reach new highs:

Since WWII the market has either corrected (14%) or fell into a bear market (over 30%) 38 times over the last 75 years or about half the time.
Also, a 14% loss (correction) requires a 16.25% gain to break even from that correction. A 33% loss (bear market loss) requires a 49.25% gain to break even.
At these market levels ask yourself a few questions:
Short term:
- Do I have debt that I could pay off with some of these gains (prior to a correction)?
- Do I have large one time payments (weddings, tuition, house projects, vacations, etc) that could be funded by reallocating some of your market gains to cash with some of these gains.
Long term:
- For young, long term investors, prepare yourself emotionally for sell offs of 14% - 35% at least every other year. Continue adding to your retirement (investment) by dollar cost averaging in both up and down markets.
For me...and
- For retirees using their portfolio for income, try to position 3-5 years of your income needs in less volatile investments.
I am using VFISX and VWINX for this propose in retirement. In years where the market returns are better than VWINX, I reallocate some of these gains into VFISX & VWINX. I also may take yearly income from these funds in years when they far outperform.
When the market sells off I first draw from VFISX, then VWINX. These two funds help me navigate yearly income withdrawals during market downturns while the rest of my portfolio waits for a recovery.
Reference:
heres-how-long-stock-market-corrections-last-and-how-bad-they-can-get

What looks to be the same piece is on www.inter-empresarial.com. My security software is blocking access. Rather than override, one can look at the Google cache.
Here's a Google search to get you there. Be advised that the same security software blocks some of the content on the cached page. But the text is readable.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Jim+Kieffer+citywire+site:inter-empresarial.com
After all that work, it doesn't add any info:

‘After 23 years at Artisan and greater than three a long time within the funding enterprise, Jim Kieffer is stepping again from day-to-day portfolio administration,’ stated a spokeswoman for Artisan. ‘Jim will stay a managing director and an energetic member of the crew.’

BCSVX is an interesting share. One I will add to my watch list. This is probably too much of a generalization but... Emerging Markets is a riskier area. Now add Small Cap to it... a bit more risky. So, when I look at 10 plus years of returns on these funds it seems like none of them beat the S&P 500 and they all have a high Ulcer and low Martin and many have high ER. So, why do I own some FPADX? I will compare to FSEAX and BCSVX and perhaps transfer to one of those or out of EM completely myself. I guess I'm repeating what Baseball Fan said above.

They'll probably be forming their own shop.
Perhaps ultimately, but "Jim Kieffer ... will remain part of the investment team for the time being, working as an analyst, advisor, and mentor."
(M* Analyst Note for ARTQX.)
This contrasts with the simultaneous announcement at ARTGX that Justin Bandy is leaving immediately. Perhaps the difference is that Kieffer is a lead manager while Bandy had recently been added to ARTGX and this was his first managing assignment.
The new M* quote page for funds presents the inflows and outflows graphically. ARTQX had major outflows in 2013-2015 but since then flows have been pretty quiescent, especially in 2020. ARTLX shows a similar pattern, though its major outflows were in 2015-2016.
It is reasonable to suggest that ARTGX has not fared well against its world fund peers because that category includes blend and growth as well as value funds. But ARTQX has been lagging its domestic value peers (2* over the past three years). ARTLX has been running hot and cold (four bottom decile years and three top decile years over the past decade).