I believe that they did mention in the beginning that they were going to open a "Fallen Angel" type of fund back in 2015. They just got around to opening it; it should not be a surprise.
Check out the links in which two funds were still on the drawing board:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2015/05/may-1-2015/
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/15385/david-any-word-on-the-launch-date-of-grandeur-peaks-fallen-angels-fund
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/10709/grandeur-peak
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/7116/grandeur-peak-2q-commentary

In the case of this ETF, I would say that a negative return over the fund's lifetime (6½ years) and just $13.90M AUM would be good reasons to close down the fund. More likely the latter.
https://www.vaneck.com/library/vaneck-vectors-etfs/ymli-fact-sheet-pdf/

In terms of readability, the report said the average American reads at an 8th-grade level, which is a score between 60 and 70 on a scale of 100. Writing at this level maximizes potential customer reach and engagement, it said. The higher the score, the easier the content is to understand, the report said, adding that firms should aim for at least a score of 50.

For God’s sake!

FYI: Investors want to view websites with clear and understandable information—yet that's not what they're getting from asset management companies, according to new research.
Instead, investors are being fed complex content that takes longer to digest and requires high mental effort to understand, according to research by Visible Thread, with the backing of Edelman Trust Barometer.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/financial-services-ranks-as-least-trusted-industry-due-to-non-transparent-websites-51624.html?print
2019 Asset Management Website Clarity Index:
https://www.visiblethread.com/wp-content/uploads/VisibleThread-2019-Asset-Management-Website-Clarity-Index.pdf

FYI: VanEck, one of the largest providers of exchange traded funds (“ETFs”) in the U.S. and worldwide, announced today that it plans to close and liquidate the VanEck Vectors High Income Infrastructure MLP ETF (the “Fund”).
On September 13, 2019, the Board of Trustees of VanEck Vectors ETF Trust approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190913005493/en/VanEck-Announces-VanEck-Vectors®-ETF-Product-Line
M* Snapshot YMLL:
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/ymli/quote

exactly
why I said 'not to be believed'
I hope FD1xxx sticks around and contributes data and informed experience here
but MFO yawn, come on, screw off, I say
the monthly columns are a lot more informative than a month of reading marketwatch and many other places

nothing like endless pissing on volunteer (huge) efforts, is there
and the photo he posted really shows strength
all interesting to me --- FD100nn has done solid work and solid posting
but check out not just that baby pic but also the other comments, gawd
I wonder how much moolah DS and Charles et alia are raking in from their labors here
I bet it is not to be believed

"Last decade, hedge funds were the glamour investment. For everyday investors, hedge funds were rumors rather than reality, because 1) such funds could be bought only by the wealthy and 2) their performance records were hidden. It was (and is) illegal for hedge funds to publish their returns, as only accredited investors were permitted to view them. Hedge funds were, in a sense, rated X."
By John Rekenthaler at M*
Click here for article

I cut back on IOFIX because as mentioned before I am really spooked with what is going on with the yield curve and longer dated Treasuries. Albeit continued strength in the economy as evidenced by a widening yield curve should be a positive for IOFIX. You and I have far different risk tolerances.

I'm sure we are different. I'm looking for my bond OEFs to make 6+% annually with the lowest SD and most times invested at 99+% but I trade several times per year using stocks, indexes(most times), CEFs and more for several days to make 1-3% when I see favorable technical analysis. I just got out today of VTI that I bought last week.

http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/374434/3846258.aspx
I couldn’t find here where you entered VTI. Are you bringing your after the fact posting style over to this forum? And why are you even here in light of your not very complimentary comment about Mutual Fund Observer in the link above, If MFO is such a “yawn” why even bother.

I cut back on IOFIX because as mentioned before I am really spooked with what is going on with the yield curve and longer dated Treasuries. Albeit continued strength in the economy as evidenced by a widening yield curve should be a positive for IOFIX. You and I have far different risk tolerances.

I'm sure we are different. I'm looking for my bond OEFs to make 6+% annually with the lowest SD and most times invested at 99+% but I trade several times per year using stocks, indexes(most times), CEFs and more for several days to make 1-3% when I see favorable technical analysis. I just got out today of VTI that I bought last week.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064219004353/acsmallcap497s.htm
497 1 acsmallcap497s.htm 497
image001
MUTUAL FUND SERIES TRUST
AlphaCentric Small Cap Opportunities Fund
Class A: SMZAX Class C: SMZCX Class I: SMZIX
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated September 13, 2019
to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated August 1, 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
The Board of Trustees of Mutual Fund Series Trust has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on September 27, 2019 (“Liquidation Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments and may no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents until all shares have been redeemed. Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
Current shareholders of the Fund may, consistent with the requirements set forth in the “Exchange Privilege” section of the Prospectus, exchange their shares into shares of the same class of other funds in the AlphaCentric Family of Funds at any time prior to the Liquidation Date.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED OR EXCHANGED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OR ACCOUNT OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Fund at 1-844-223-8637.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
This Supplement and the existing Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information, each dated August 1, 2019, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. The Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information each dated August 1, 2019 have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference, and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-844-223-8637 or by writing to 17645 Wright Street, Suite 200, Omaha, Nebraska 68130.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

Prospectus as of 9/12/19:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834419016535/fp0045773_485bpos.htm
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses After Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement 1.35%

wrong about the fed, from a wrongheaded sense of emergency
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/opinion/trump-economy.html
plus comedy!
Trump thinks that federal debt is like a business loan, which you can pay down early to take advantage of lower interest rates. He’s clearly unaware that federal debt actually consists of bonds, which can’t be prepaid (which is one reason interest rates on federal debt are always lower than, say, rates on home mortgages). That is, he imagines that the government’s finances can be managed as if the U.S. were a casino or a golf course, and it never occurred to him to ask anyone at Treasury whether that’s how it works.
(Of course someone is going to point out that fed can repurchase some bonds.)

I wasn’t aware “qualifications” are required for publishing financial news & opinion. Mr. Dias appears to be a fee-based financial advisor based in Florida with 12 years experience, but no certifications.
https://money.usnews.com/financial-advisors/advisor/carlos-dias-jr-5315390
@Catch - A week’s stay at his ocean-side condo in Florida in March would be even better than the proverbial steak dinner. Yes, we have on-air “financial advisers” up here pitching annuities. Stay far away.

PIMCO held its management fee constant between 2018 and 2019, at 0.50% for I shares, and 0.65% for A shares. What changed was the amount of interest it paid. From the respective prospectuses:
2018: "Other Expenses" include interest expense of 0.24%. Interest expense is borne by the Fund separately from the management fees paid to Pacific Investment Management Company LLC ("PIMCO"). Excluding interest expense, Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses After Fee Waiver and/or Expense Reimbursement are 0.50%, ..., 0.65%, ...
2019: "Other Expenses" include interest expense of 0.55%. Interest expense is borne by the Fund separately from the management fees paid to Pacific Investment Management Company LLC ("PIMCO"). Excluding interest expense, Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses After Fee Waiver and/or Expense Reimbursement are 0.50%, ... 0.65%, ...
Personally, I'm not fond of leveraging because I'm uncomfortable with the risk profile, which I don't fully understand. Naively, it's borrowing short to lend long, which can break down as the yield curve flattens. (I believe it's a lot more complicated based on the derivatives used, but this seems like a good starting point to think about leverage.)
At the same time, the fund has limited interest rate risk by staying at very close to zero duration (under a year). While that reduces downside risk, it also reduces upside risk (impeding the benefit of falling rates). Which is in evidence now.
Still, 3% below category average YTD (5.34% vs. 8.14%) and exactly average (6.68%) over the past year IMHO is not a disaster. Figures as of Sept. 12, 2019.
https://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/multisector-bond/$FOCA$MU.aspx
Regarding fees, I'm bothered by the fact that PIMCO collects more in management fees for its A shares than for its I shares. I'm guessing that this is so that people can buy the A shares for "free" (NTF) in supermarkets. The money that the fund pays to the brokerages has to come from somewhere, and the 0.25% 12b-1 fee added to A shares may not cover the full amount that PIMCO pays. At least with the "other expenses", PIMCO is upfront in saying that it's going to pay interest on its investments.

A current NPR article is reporting that:
MIT To Settle Suit Alleging It Hurt Workers In 401(k) Plan

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has reached an agreement in principle to settle a lawsuit that alleged that MIT, one of the nation's most prestigious universities, hurt workers in its retirement plan by engaging in an improper relationship with the financial firm Fidelity Investments.
Just days ahead of the start of the trial, MIT and the plaintiffs said in a court filing that they had reached the deal and are asking the court for 45 days in order for the details to be finalized and prepared for consideration by the court.
MIT Accused Of Costing Workers Millions In Cozy Deal With Financial Giant Fidelity
The lawsuit alleged that MIT went against the advice of its own consultants and allowed Fidelity to pack the university's retirement plan with high-fee investment funds that ended up costing employees tens of millions of dollars. In return, the lawsuit said, MIT leveraged millions of dollars in donations from Fidelity.
MIT and Fidelity have said the allegations have no merit.
The lawsuit said Fidelity executives took MIT officials on lavish outings, including an NBA Finals game. Court documents show that in 2015, when the university considered other options, an MIT dean emailed the head of an MIT committee overseeing the plan: "If we're not switching to Vanguard or TIAA Cref, I am going to expect something big and good coming to MIT," according to the court records.
Jerry Schlichter, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said that soon afterwards, "Fidelity donated $5 million to MIT."
In a court filing, MIT said the dean who wrote that email "never had any fiduciary responsibility for the plan."
In a letter to faculty and staff Thursday, MIT Provost Martin Schmidt wrote: "Although MIT believes firmly that it has managed the 401(k) Plan in careful compliance with the law and in the best interests of its participants, the continued cost and distraction of litigation are likely to be significant. In order to avoid that continued drain of MIT resources, we have reached an agreement to settle the dispute."

The preceding is an excerpt from the complete NPR article.

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T047-C032-S014-retirees-don-t-make-mistakes-before-a-correction.html
Retirees: Don’t Make the Same Mistakes Before a Market Correction
Take some lessons from the mistakes many retirees made during the downturn that socked stocks in 2008. By adjusting accordingly, you don't have to fear outliving your retirement portfolio, even if you're about to retire.

There has been a noticeable uptick in long bond yields recently and it continues today. With equities nearing all time highs and junk bonds at all time highs and investors all in on the negative rate scenario, I hope this blip up doesn’t become anything more - like 2% and more on the 10 year. Actually that might not be all bad and indicative of a much stronger economy than investors have priced in.

@Junkster
R
I'm not sure where they're still finding non-agency debt trading at 70 cents on the dollar of par value today. One of their major competitors, Angel Oak, at the end of 2018 said they were buying at 86 cents on the dollar: https://angeloakcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/4Q/Seeking_to_Improve_Quality_While_Maintaining_Income_Whitepaper-web.pdf
Here's what Angel Oak says:

For example, the prime, Alt-A, and option ARM legacy NA RMBS we target at the top of the capital structure are still at deep discounts relative to par at approximately 86 cents on the dollar.

So if it's 70 cents, I assume it is probably lower credit quality, which could be fine so long as one is willing to accept the additional default risk. I see the distinction in your post is sub-prime so that must be it.
Update: OK, I see here for AlphaCentric's own data, the portfolio is at 75 cents on the dollar and the entire market they say is 81 cents on the dollar: alphacentricfunds.com/funds/IncomeOpp/presentation.pdf
Yet it is interesting--one word for it, scary is another--how far down the capital structure with regard to collateral and credit quality you have to go to get to such discounts now. See page 19 to look at their example of the debt tranches. I'm not saying this strategy won't work, but clearly there are risks here.

These subprime borrowers have now been in their homes 12 to 16 years and have built up equity instead of being upside down when the housing market cratered in 07/08. Dan Ivascyn mentioned in his recent interview how unlikely these borrowers would be to default now even if they their economic situation worsens. There may be another economic crisis but next time it may finally be the much ballyhooed corporate credit crisis. From my experience investors always want to relive the previous crisis not realizing they never immediately repeat. A classic example is the inflation crisis of the 70s. How many times have we heard since then another inflation crisis is just around the corner.