The entire investing world has been telling us to invest in short term bonds since the great recession. It pains me greatly to see how short term bonds have performed against long term bonds.
Of course I'm not invested in a fund that's returned 8% over 5, 10.5% over 10 and 8.5% over 15 years. Because I listen to reason and reason said if you owned long dated bonds in your portfolio then you are an idiot.
Well, fact of the matter is I AM an idiot, but for the exact opposite reason. As long as I do not invest in WHOSX, it will continue doing well.

It is hard to imagine a more backward conclusion than this. Who on earth does he think is offering active, non-transparent ETFs? Oh, yes, the mutual fund companies.
American Century, Fidelity, T. Rowe Price ... The mutual fund companies have faced two major impediments. One, an antiquated regulatory system designed in 1940 and periodically patched since then. That system imposes a series of direct and indirect expenses on OEFs (state registration fees and taxation of realized capital gains, e.g.) that ETF regulations do not. One fund company president who is looking to transition one of his smaller funds directly into a non-transparent ETF estimates that regulation and the fee structure for middlemen represent over half of all of the expenses his firm bears. Two, the "mutual funds are dinosaurs" mantra that caught on with the media, anxious for stories, and advisers anxious to "add value."
There are 656 ETFs that are three years old or less; dozens more were launched and liquidated or "repurposed" (the Drone ETF becoming the Cloud Economy ETF) in the same period. Of those 656, nearly 400 are no economically sustainable. That cutoff there, established by people who study ETF liquidations, is $30M AUM.
And whose funds are rolling in the cash? Looking just at these younger funds that have drawn $1B or more: JPMorgan, State Street, Vanguard, Deutsche, Franklin, BlackRock, Principal. Which is to say, old-line mutual fund companies. (As an aside, most also have a captive adviser workforce whose "recommended" list of ETFs are in-house products.)
Among the 25 largest newer ETFs, only two come from the upstart community: GraniteShares Gold (BAR) and GlobalX US Preferred (PFFD). Global X is owned by Mirae Asset, a Seoul-based firm that also owned Brown Brothers Harrison and the BBH Funds.
I don't know whether, a generation hence, PRWCX will be structured as an OEF under the '40 Act, an ETF under the Precidian Rule, both or neither. But I do know that the firms with the global reach, global recognition and multi-trillion asset bases that dominate the fund industry are more likely to cast the CNBC favorites of the world into deep shadow than vice versa.

@FD1000: I fail to see how one could read that memo and not take away his recommendation to rotate out of safe havens and start playing offense; that this is in fact a good time to buy, and that one should not be too hung up on buying at the exact bottom. Further, that Marks sees the strong possibility of a double bottom.
Marks is a value investor, BTW, who is wary of "market" behavior, and likes to move in directions contrary to the market.

+1.

@FD100: my wife is actually in PRWCX, so I read Giroux's letters (I like his contrarian, market-sceptic, value-tilt; for sure he's no market-indexer).
I'm pleased that when Marks' sees ambiguity he labels it as such. Oakmark / Harris have done the same, as has Klarman, and others. I would not expect an investment advisor to give away his or her picks in a free missive which can be downloaded by anyone as well as paying clients.
I would find your comments about Marks' "putting in the time" pretty funny, if I wasn't so sure that you developed a robust methodology for deterministically identifying market bottoms and for-real up drafts. Very cool that you've been able to do that. Very, very cool. I look forward to you publishing the details of that methodology here in this free forum.

Hi @Old_Skeet
You noted:

"1974 was a bad year in the stock market. As it began to turn upward so did the economy."

Am I to understand your statement that the stock market was front running the economy and knew (somehow) things were improving before the consumer was aware, thus supporting the economic growth??? I fully understand the numerous temporary economic conditions that have existed back to 1974. There is no comparison to any modern (post- 1974) economic circumstance that relates to today.
I'll stick with this below % number, as it has been in place from the math for many years .....
Consumer spending comprises 70% of GDP. The retail and service industries are critical components of the U.S. economy.
It was easy to look around our community and towards the larger city communities as Michigan began the shutdown of normal business functions. I fully support these actions; as there remains too many dumb asses who continue to argue that their constitutional rights are being violated. Fine, you'all can move to one location to hang out together until ; well, that is the question, eh?
I don't need an economics degree to see how far down into the previous employed population impacts in all areas. The magnitude of the depth of unemployment is easy enough to consider when looking at all the variables into how many other business companies are impaired when any one business, large or small closes.
@rono expressed this several weeks ago from a common sense view. I remain fully in agreement.
I submit my adjusted quote from the movie, "August Rush":
The "economic" music is all around us, all we have to do is listen.
Lastly. What will it take to move me back into what was "normal", pre-COVID? A hell of a lot more than what is in the Washington, D.C. plan....that isn't a viable plan at this time.
I say this, for myself and numerous others here; by the mere fact of our birth dates, that our survival rate from contracting COVID is low to 0. I'm not ready to leave this third rock from the sun just yet; and will have to adjust my societal involvement.

This is what Marks said on March 3rd (link).
"These days, people have been asking me whether this is the time to buy. My answer is more nuanced: it’s probably a time to buy. There can be no unique time to buy that we can identify. The only thing we can be sure of today is that stock prices, for example, are a lot lower in the absolute than they were two weeks ago."
On March 3rd the SP500 was less than 7% down for year-to-date. Marks started buying way too early and what is known as falling knives. Marks claims that he is using intrinsic valuation, after just 7% drop for the longest bull market, how much intrinsic valuation can you find?
But my main problem that you will find anything you like in most of his memos. Do nothing, it's too expensive, buy now, prices can go lower/higher and many what ifs to cover any angle.
BTW, buying on the way down isn't recommended, IMO a better way if to start buying and keep buying only on the way up. When you buy lower and lower and the price goes down you will lose more money.
Do You realized that Marks hardly ever quantify his memos because when you do that you actually have to put the time and analyze the numbers :-)
I was trained from an early age at school that saying no isn't enough, you must come up with a good example or a solution. With that in mind, see below.
If you want to read great memos from a manager that actually manages money please read David R. Giroux who manages PRWCX. Giroux can invest in stocks + bonds and navigate market extremely well and why PRWCX performance for 3 thru 15 years is in the top 3%. The following (link) is PRWCX 12/31/2019 annual report. You will find so many specific ideas and additional numbers/estimates.

In Central bank manipulated environment, everyone is expert and experts are always wrong. Ouch - SEMMX...0.3....4.9 (ST duration, 3 year SD<1,over 30% IG (investment grade)bonds-good cash sub) - is down 23%.

+1 @Shostakovich, Marks is very clearly saying that he is buying now, though not backing up the truck, and even if it's certainly possible that we'll have another plunge, the prices are already attractive.
His point is that no one can predict the exact bottom, but you can assess when prices are attractive, and he says he is finding some of those.

@FD1000: I fail to see how one could read that memo and not take away his recommendation to rotate out of safe havens and start playing offense; that this is in fact a good time to buy, and that one should not be too hung up on buying at the exact bottom. Further, that Marks sees the strong possibility of a double bottom.
Marks is a value investor, BTW, who is wary of "market" behavior, and likes to move in directions contrary to the market.

.....And that is what makes investing both a Science--- even if rather uncertain--- and an Art. NOTHING in investing is certain, unless you're talking about performance and other numbers from the PAST. With an eye toward the future, certainty is not part of the picture. Probabilities? Maybe. But that's hardly the case in our current crisis. ... So, one has to be deft, adroit. One must act (or choose not to act) with some level of intellectual AND intuitional legerdemain. "Intuition" is NOT just a wild hunch. It's been demonstrated scientifically that there are some of us who are very much innately skilled in this regard: He/she can walk into a room and instantly gage the mood. No shit. MBTI Myers Briggs Type Indicator. INFJ....
....Sadly, though, that type comprises only 1% of the population at large. And in any case, we all must call upon even our "inferior" function from time to time. MOST folks are more literal-minded, sensate types. Which is why, it seems to me, that the sort of knowledge which Science can provide has come to be the ONLY sort of knowledge recognized as valid and true. (Science-olatry. Measurable, observable visually, double-blind studies.) But what about the Humanities? Ethics? There is a monumentally huge need for society to re-discover what "Ethics" means.
**************************************
Equipped with as much relevant information as we can find, investors need to make educated hunches. ALWAYS. All the time. Because the future is uncertain. As I read that latest memo from Howard Marks, it is precisely THAT which he is addressing: "What is Reality?" Answer: All that is, or can be.... Benjamin Graham wrote "The Intelligent Investor." We can equip ourselves with tools and information, but we might find, when the time comes, that we brought the wrong-sized ratchet. Happens all the time, every day. So, don't bet the farm on a single play.

Over the years I posted many times about Marks. You will never find actionable items but lots of narratives that go both ways.
This article is no difference
"Stocks may turn around and head north and you’ll be glad you bought some. Or they may continue down, in which case you’ll have money left to buy more. That’s life for people who accept that they don’t know what the future holds."
"In my opinion, however, there’s simply no room for certainty in investing, and today more than usual."
Please let me know what you learned :-)

Harry Truman said:
“Give me a one-handed Economist. All my economists say 'on one hand...', then 'but on the other hand...”

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.

The most recent distribution yield on VMSXX was 2.19%. The current NAV is 1.0002. If it didn't break the buck in the last meltdown it's probably not going to anytime soon. I have my max allocation to this fund at the present time. If I see NAV start to drift below a buck I will shift into the treasury MM. At last read VUSXX's distribution yield was 1.20%. That's quite a difference for the time being.

@davor, I have averaged in as well. I brought my equity allocation up to 43%/44% range and it is currently at 48% through growth from the recent stock market rebound. When it hits 49% I'll trim back to 47% by eliminating an equity position from my equity income sleeve most likely LCEAX. Currently, I'm positioning money on the income side of my portfolio. Perhaps, by the end of this quarter I plan to bubble at 10% cash, 45% income and 45% equity and ride from there into the 4th quarter. Once, I reach the 10/45/45 target asset allocation all income that the portfolio generates will go into the cash area of the portfolio. Currently, all income goes towards building the income area. In time, I plan to move back to my 20/40/40 allocation, in steps of course. But, right now, for me, Surf is Up so ride the wave that the FOMC & Treasury are currently making. But, don't throw caution to the wind either. What i'm doing is throttling my asset allocation to take advantage of current market conditions. I'm thinking most of the leverage money is now gone (or greatly reduced). I've been watching the money flow on SPY and it continues to be in an up trend. On March 6th my money feed in the barometer read 23. Today it reads 75. Can it cut the other way ... Absolutely.

@davfor, I entered to work force back in the early 70's ... unemployment around 10%. 1974 was a bad year in the stock market. As it began to turn upward so did the economy. In the mid 80's inflation was running 10+% ... employment was around 10+% as well ... as the stock market began to turn upward so did the economy. In the 90's same thing repeated. In the 2000's same thing repeated with the Great Recession. And, now here we are today ... the same thing is repeating. And, guess what I have been an investor in the stock and bond markets through all of these. And, with this, I bought stocks while their asset values were down. Then trimmed my asset allocation as the recovery took place. As investors we are blessed because I've NEVER seen the FOMC & Treasury step forward and be as aggressive as they have been in injecting money into the system through various avenues. Why, to inflate asset values. In this way folks think they have more than they really have and they spend. These troubling times will pass.

Here are a few recent episodes:
March 27th:

April 3rd:

April 10th:

The phrase "radical uncertainty" towards the end of this article struck a cord with me. The global economy has been severely shaken over the past couple of months and the storm is still raging. The probable duration of the negative shock is hard to gauge given the ongoing uncertainties surrounding Covid-19's impact on the ability of the global economy to bounce back during the remainder of the year. The longer that rebound is delayed, the more likely it becomes that the new normal that emerges will look substantially different than the old normal...and the longer the rebuilding process will take to complete once it has begun.

I was thinking of how some investors, especially retirees, can protect themselves from massive sell-offs like we just had. This idea came to my head. What about using a "Trailing Stop Order" on a portfolio? (maybe this hibernation gives me to much time to think :) )
These are typically used when you are buying or selling stocks. It sets discipline on when to sell. There is one set of diversified portfolio ETFs that you could do this with, the BlackRock iShares allocation funds, AOM, AOR, AOA. These are actually pretty good diversified "balance" funds, conservative, moderate and aggressive. The one closest to 60:40 allocation is AOR. This fund compares well to Vanguards balanced index fund VBINX. I think @davidrmoran brought these ETFs to my attention a few years ago. I have not been able to find other balanced ETFs that are diversified like these.
The idea would be to hold one of these ETFs as your core portfolio holding, maybe the bulk of the portfolio or whatever % you deem appropriate. If you want to limit your loss to say 10% of the funds high you set up the trailing stop order to sell at -10%. You protect the bulk of your retirement savings. Especially important if you are already retired and massive 20%+ really hurts maybe more so than for people still in the accumulative stage.
Any opinions + or - on this idea? I am contemplating this idea in my retirement savings so that I am not a deer in the head lights.

This article paints a dark picture. It discusses what the author sees as being a very fragile global economy and a very uncertain path moving forward. Some of the concerns it expresses may help explain the Feds aggressive recent actions. Here are a few excerpts...

The latest U.S. data proves the world is in its steepest freefall ever—and the old economic and political playbooks don’t apply....There has never been a crash landing like this before. There is something new under the sun. And it is horrifying.
Thursday’s news confirms that the Western economies face a far deeper and more savage economic shock than they have ever previously experienced. The coronavirus lockdown directly affects services—retail, real estate, education, entertainment, restaurants—where 80 percent of Americans work today. Thus the result is immediate and catastrophic.
...this year, for the first time since reasonably reliable records of GDP began to be computed after World War II, the emerging market economies will contract. An entire model of global economic development has been brought skidding to a halt.
...we are witnessing the largest combined fiscal effort launched since World War II. Its effects will make themselves felt in weeks and months to come. It is already clear that the first round may not be enough.
We are engaged in the largest-ever surge in public debt in peacetime....Some have suggested it would be simpler for the central banks to cut out the business of buying debt issued by the government and instead simply to credit governments with a gigantic cash balance....And on 9 April that is exactly what the Bank of England announced it would be doing. For all intents and purposes, this means the central bank is simply printing money.
We now know what truly radical uncertainty looks like. A huge part of the world’s population has had the basic functioning of its life radically disrupted. None of us can confidently predict when we will be able to return to our pre-coronavirus lives.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/09/unemployment-coronavirus-pandemic-normal-economy-is-never-coming-back/
Here is an article that explains the Bank of England's recent actions:
https://theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/09/bank-of-england-to-finance-uk-government-covid-19-crisis-spending

@FD1000

The price is always right

I don't think the price was always right when the market bid up Pets.com, Adelphia Communications, Enron, Worldcom, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, tulip bulbs, etc. throughout history in past manias. But there are those who believe what you are saying. They're called efficient market theorists and would recommend only buying a total market index fund. I don't really understand, though, if you believe that, why you're posting on this board, which is devoted primarily to actively managed funds with managers who don't believe the price is always right. Those two philosophies--the price is always right or the price is often wrong and there are ways to get an edge on the market through active management--are incompatible. So if you don't mind my asking, why are you here?

The price over time is right as reflected in the SP500.
Sure, there is a way for managed funds but over LT the SP500 performance is better than most managed funds.
BTW, I have posted for years now that QQQ has been a better performer because the big high tech companies are winning so big.
The SP500 is also a global index and gets about 40% of its revenues from abroad. QQQ is even more global with about 50% of its revenue from abroad.