I have owned it for around a half year, and I agree with little5bee as far as it being a roller coaster ride. It will will make you very happy when you least expect it (when the market went way down a few months ago, that one day MCXIX went up 9%, pretty much unheard of for a mutual fund, particularly with the market way down), It can also be frustrating when you least expect it (it has gone down during good market days). It has moved more in a similar direction as the market over the last month or so. Follow claimul's link to get an idea of the strategies the managers use. You just have to let the managers do their thing, and ignore it if the performance goes amiss in the short term. I have hung with it, and it seems to be paying off.

They describe their strategy somewhat in this presentation: http://www.catalystmf.com/i/u/6149790/f/CatalystMacroStrategyFund/MCXAX_Presentation_--_2015_Q1.pdf
I put some money into it recently. I view it in the same category as other go-anywhere, tactical allocation funds like Pimco All Asset Authority (PAUIX) or Whitebox Tactical (WBMIX) -- the manager makes big bets on where they think the market is going, and the fund goes up when they're right, and goes down when they're wrong. Just like PAUIX and WBMIX, I fully expect MCXAX's strategy will work until it doesn't.
FYI, the institutional class of the fund (MCXIX) is available at Vanguard and TD Ameritrade for the same minimum initial purchase as the A shares. Lower expense ratio, but generally costs a transaction fee.

http://www.barrons.com/articles/retirement-how-to-live-well-1446875346?mobile=y
Any other ideas

@David_Snowball
I don't know whether it was the info, or the way you chose to sequence it, but this month's commentary got my tumblers rolling again (had almost forgot what it felt like). "Thought experiments" I hadn't completed and had set aside. Merci gobs to you and to those who contributed. Very stimulating.
Noah Smith had an edit in BloombergView yesterday about the seeming disappearance of the value premium, and possible reasons for it. We exchanged a few comments about this several months back. Might take a glance.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-05/maybe-financial-markets-have-been-wrong-all-along

As I understand it you aren't going to find it at any brokerage... it's only being offered directly from GP. The only exception I'm aware of is if an advisor uses a broker's platform for his business then they'll be able to buy the fund, based on their allocation, on that platform, but I don't believe it will ever show up as available to the general public at any broker.
What surprises me is that the fund says it's "open" on their website. I must be definitionally challenged when it comes to what that means, because $85 million of interest whiddled down to $25 million or so of allocations doesn't exactly sound like "open" to me.

That's too bad. I do have some direct fund accounts, e.g. FAIRX, but I've made it a point to go through brokerages. I will just have to pass on this fund and maybe look into Global Stalwarts appropriateness for my portfolio,

Basically getting crushed today. The good news (employment) is bad news, after all. Main Street and Wall Street not on the same page. Separate lives. Separate economies. Separate universes. Barron's: http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/11/06/utilities-etf-crushed-by-fed-rate-expectations-financials-jump/?mod=BOLBlog

No, sadly, this will be major tax-gain harvesting.
Seafarer gives direct investors access to their low expense institutional class shares; you just need to meet the retail minimum and set up an AIP. The minimum additional investment via Scottrade is $500, which is rarely manageable for me, but with an AIP I can set it to $100/month which helps restore my discipline on such matters.
So effective December 1, I'll be doing $100/month into Seafarer, T. Rowe Price Spectrum Income and Grandeur Peak Global Microcap. I've discontinued my AIP with F P A Crescent (FPACX) since that position is now larger than my next-two largest positions combined.
For what that's worth,
David

"Beneficial ownership" occurs when shares that I purchased are legally held in another entity's name. If you look at Seafarer's SAI, you'll see that the single largest shareholder of SFGIX is Charles Schwab at 77.5% of shares outstanding. If you bought Seafarer through Schwab, your shares are beneficially owned.
Seafarer is, by the way, rolling along. $717 million in AUM and a thousand basis point lead over its average peer. I finally got around this week to selling the shares that I owned beneficially through Scottrade; as soon as the check arrives, I'll become a direct shareholder with an AIP. Then watch out, Chuck, I say! The Iowa State Lottery lump-sum is $24 million right now; all by itself, that'll catapult me to a "top five" listing.
David

Apparently, a little bit of Valeant's move yesterday was in part due to the CEO getting a major margin call from Goldman. Ooops.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2015/11/06/valeant-ceo-michael-pearson-sells-1-3-million-shares-after-margin-call-on-100-million-loan/

Do you have a reason to believe that M* does not calculate star ratings periodically on an automatic schedule (i.e. without discretion)?
Here are two statements from M* that the calculations are done monthly:
(In response to: " how often/when the star ratings are updated?") "Fund star ratings are calculated monthly." Edgars Vimba (Morningstar).
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/274950.aspx (1/19/2011)
"So, any fund can get [a star rating]. We update it monthly" Russ Kinnel (Morningstar).
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=662384 (8/21/14)
Regarding delay in publishing monthly figures, I haven't found a US statement, but this Australian M* statement is somewhat consistent with what you're seeing here:
"How Often are Morningstar Ratings (Star Ratings) Updated?
"Morningstar Ratings (Star Ratings) are recalculated and republished in the second week of each month, at the same time as performance figures. "
http://www.morningstar.com.au/Funds/FundsFaq#FFAQ14
As far as M* delaying data analysis is concerned, some of their methodology does build in lags. For example, when they categorize a fund, the assigned category does not necessarily reflect the current portfolio. That's done essentially for the second reason you stated - that transitory shifts may be just that and not reflect the overall character of the fund. Even so, there is a well-defined, methodically followed process; it's just that it includes some hysteresis.

msf said:
That you (and likely the rest of the investing world) expect Valeant to pull Sequoia's performance down further has no effect on the M* star rating.

Of course suppositions about the future performance of Valeant's common would not go into current star ratings. However, today's performance is in the books and is now past performance, as is its effect on SEQUX's NAV. And the performance of Valeant's common between its plunge on Oct 21 and today is also past performance, as is its effect on SEQUX's NAV during this time, as is its effect on SEQUX's performance numbers, enough to jar even its 3 and 5 yr TR figures. Doing the math and comparing those adjusted numbers to its peer group, my interpretation is that M* has now determined that SEQUX is a 3-star fund, based on past performance.
I was suggesting, with my dead man walking comment, that if M* had any reluctance to defer the star rating downgrade (1) because of, or as a courtesy to, SEQUX's fine historical record and management, and/or (2) because good news re. Valeant might emerge any day which would turn around its stock price in a jiffy, then today's "second leg down" may have relieved them of their reluctance to make the move. They simply couldn't wait any longer, because there was no longer reason to do so--- their star rating of SEQUX had to reflect reality, in the here and now.

In our rating system, RPHYX remains a top quintile fund based on risk adjusted return and a Great Owl ...

Why people are surprised with the change in stars of the fund ? Star rating is purely on mechanical calculations based on the risk-adjusted performance of the funds and a reflection of their aggregate past record (3, 5 and 10 years) with more weightage long term record than short. Periodically star ratings are caluculated every year and I am not sure how frequently they do that and publish the new start ratings of the funds.
If M* mentioned this fund is under review, that is for their qualitative rating (Gold, Silver, Bronze, etc.) based on their Analst analysis of the fund

And, in a freakish development, the fund with the second-largest stake in Valeant is up 16.5% YTD. That's Tanaka Growth (TGFRX), with an 11% Valeant position.
David

TGFRX benefited by its position in FING B Fingerprint Cards, up 123% over the past 3 months and up 1240% YTD.
Kevin

@Jim0445
The reorganization is suppose to occur around 11/16/15 as per this filing, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/889284/000119312515299132/d11216d497.htm

Yeah, once I get my 1st $ 1 BILLION I will consider a 90/10 allocation...!
I have in my possession an old (~1960s era) edition of "The Intelligent Investor", written by Buffett's one-time mentor, Ben Graham. In it, he discusses the topic of asset allocation. He wisely admitted that there is no optimum allocation advice for all investors, but as a general guideline that a 2-asset (equities, US Treasurys) portfolio should generally contain no more equities than 75% and no less than 25% for most investors. Graham described that investors younger and more risk-tolerant might have as much (but no more) than 75% equities; older and less risk-tolerant investors should still have at least 25% equities. Basically any extreme allocation outside the 75/25 to 25/75 was not recommended.
Graham's counsel always seemed to me to be simple -- and thus easy for an individual to implement-- and wise.
(Several years ago, I paged through a modern edition of Graham's book in a Barnes & Noble, looking for that passage, but it seems to have been posthumously excised, perhaps replaced by "newer, enlightened" thinking during the great 1990's bull market).
An aside: I doubt Graham would have much positive to say regarding the current excitement with "alternative strategies" -- especially given the expense ratios in vehicles available to retail investors.

Ya know, Charles adds some clarity with the data. Recent performance hasn't been so hotsy-totsy. Add to that the (reasonable) supposition that their huge Valeant holding is a dead man walking, do the math, and M* pretty much had to knock off some stars. A cautionary tale for those who believe that concentrated MFs and high active share numbers hold to the virtuous path, in and of themselves. When one goes with concentration anywhere inside the portfolio, I think it's important to mine a little deeper on the screening before making choices, and to look at other stats we rarely talk about on the Board: tracking error and information ratio.
[I think it was @MJG who made this point in a comment over a year ago]
Anyone know how those figures have moved for SEQUX, over the past 5 years?

SEQUX rates a 1 across the past 1 and 3 year periods and a 3 across the past 5 year period ... through October in the MFO system, based on Martin risk adjusted return. Drawdown reached 21% in October. Since M*'s composite rating is based on 3, 5, and 10 year ratings, would not be surprised if it now scores 3 stars.
Below are its risk/return metrics across various periods. Note that through October anyway, it only lost 3% for year, despite its October collapse, and it remains a top quintile fund across the current full cycle, which began November 2007.

In my inbox today
11/04/2015
MFLDX: MainStay Marketfield I
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 3 stars to 2 stars. For details, click here
RPHYX: RiverPark Short Term High Yield Retail
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 2 stars to 1 star. For details, click here
HHCAX: Highland Long/Short Healthcare A
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 3 stars. For details, click here
NEFZX: Loomis Sayles Strategic Income A
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 3 stars to 4 stars. For details, click here
MINDX: Matthews India Investor
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 3 stars to 4 stars. For details, click here
WSCVX: Walthausen Small Cap Value
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 3 stars. For details, click here
BRTNX: Bretton Fund
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 3 stars to 2 stars. For details, click here