@MFO Members: With 7.3 Million AUM, an high expense ratio of 1.85, couple with poor performance, 90 precentile in 2013, 98 percentile in 2014, and 70 percentile YTD this fund will not be missed. Therefore, I'm not sending flowers or going to the wake or the funeral.
Regards,
Ted
Another One Bites The Dust: Queen

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064215002120/arbitrage497stkr.htm
497 1 arbitrage497stkr.htm 497
Catalyst Event Arbitrage Fund
(the “Fund”)
a series of Mutual Fund Series Trust
Supplement Dated May 11, 2015
to the Prospectus Dated November 1, 2014
The Board of Trustees of the Mutual Fund Series Trust has concluded, based on the recommendation of Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC, 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 June 15, 2015 (“Liquidation Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments and will 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 Prospectus, exchange their shares into shares of the same class of other funds in Catalyst family of funds, such as the Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund or Catalyst Macro Strategy Fund, at any time prior to the Liquidation Date.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED OR EXCHANGED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO JUNE 15, 2015 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 1-866-447-4228.
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 Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated November 1, 2014, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated November 1, 2014 have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Funds toll-free at 1-866-447-4228 or by writing to 17605 Wright Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68130.

I'm not sure if Vanguard or any other of the Robo's give any consideration to "outside assets". Many times it is advantageous to do "rebalancing" in IRA's or 401K's versus a taxable account, especially if still working. If outside assets are not considered for allocation or rebalancing, these services are incomplete and possibly not efficient.

Hi Guys,
Probably like most of you, there are financial writers I like and trust, and others I do not. Jaffe falls in the positive category, but not without reservations.
Some skepticism is a practical defensive device whenever accessing any financial opinions. I mostly find Jaffe’s columns informative, but buyer beware since there is a tendency to distort presentations to buttress a position.
Jaffe shows promise as a financial commentator. Proof of that is in this referenced column. He wisely chooses to close his assessment by liberally quoting MFO’s own David Snowball. Jaffe’s choice in this regard is spot on-target.
Congratulations to Professor Snowball. The reference to his perspective on this subject gives him a wider, more diversified audience exposure.
But care must be exercised when reading Jaffe’s documentation. It seems as if he is playing loose with statistics. Instead of measuring a manager’s performance over an integrated timeframe, Jaffe resorts to a far less meaningful measure of 8 consecutive years of outperformance to generate his position. He says: “just four actively managed funds …. have current streaks of eight consecutive calendar years of beating the S&P 500, according to Morningstar.”
So what? The meaningful measure should be the time integrated end portfolio value of active management over the entire selected timeframe; a given bad quarter or a substandard annual return is acceptable if recovery is in evidence. Also, why an 8 year period? That specific a timeframe has the unhealthy likelihood of data mining.
Understanding the reasons for making any investment decision is necessary for success.
Remember the infamous 1720 South Sea bubble when one absurd trading company attempted to sell its shares with the following goal: “For carrying on an undertaking of great advantage; but nobody to know what it is.”
History may not repeat itself, but many times it rhymes. For example, recall Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s quote: “We have to pass the Health Care Bill so you can find out what's in it”.
Even Isaac Newton fell victim to the lure of South Sea profits. He lost a ton of money. A brilliant mind is no guarantee of investment foresight.
So the cautionary lesson here is that financial articles, even those from writers who are mostly respected, must be carefully read and aggressively challenged to recognize nuances in the presentation, and biases in the perspective.
Best Regards.

FYI: Fidelity Investments’ print ad campaign highlighting some of the company’s best managers was supposed to make people think about star power.
Instead, it nearly proves that the fund industry is a black hole, sucking all the starlight into darkness
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/index-funds-killed-the-mutual-fund-star-2015-05-11/print

Were all the other 3rd years since 1947 preceded by a 6-yr rising bull? Also, if I'm not mistaken, we still have roughly 7.5 months to go in this 3rd year.

Hank, I agree with you about the past 15 years don't have anything to do with the coming 15 years. But let's not attribute that only to the James fund. That statement covers ALL funds. Assuming Vanguard has a better research department than James for arguments sake, that in itself doesn't mean that the Vanguard fund will get a better return with less risk. There are plenty of Vanguard actively managed funds that aren't great, notwithstanding their deeper bench. (more researchers means better research?)

Hi Soupkitchen,
You are correct that there are no absolutes.
However, lets not forget two important things that you can probably bank on in the future with VWINX and GLRBX.
First, the 75 basis point difference in the ER. That creates a significant headwind for GLRBX (or tailwind for VWINX) and if I am flying from New York to Atlanta, my bet is I will arrive sooner with the tailwind.
Second, to overcome the headwind, GLRBX must take increase risks to achieve equal returns. As you know, Sharp and Sortino Ratios are measures of risk adjusted returns. Looking at these, VWINX is the winner in the past 3-Yr, 5-Yr, 10-Yr, and 15-Yr periods. And Standard Deviation has already been addressed.
Just for clarification purposes, I think GLRBX is a very good fund, and I see nothing wrong with owning both. That said, I personally do not see the need to own both in the same (very similar) space and I want to put the odds in my favor to achieve the same or greater return, with less risk.
Mona

FYI: The third year of the Presidential Cycle has historically been the equity market’s best year in terms of performance, but with a gain of less than 3% YTD, 2015 has gotten off to a slow start. In fact, this year’s returns are the weakest for the third year of an election cycle in nearly 70 years (1947).
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/weakest-year-three-since-1947/

Why it pays to get reduced Social Security benefits
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-it-pays-to-get-reduced-social-security-benefits-185927965.html

Where is this years global growth occurring?

A lot can happen in 15 years, but how long ago does the year 2000 feel to you? Projected Global growth by GDP (2030):
"Get ready for a new economic order. In the world 15 years from now, the U.S. will be far less dominant, several emerging markets will catapult into prominence, and some of the largest European economies will be slipping behind."

referenced article:
the-world-s-20-largest-economies-in-2030
My Take:
Matthews Funds do a nice job in the Asia markets (MAPIX, MACSX, MSMLX, MCDFX, MAKOX, MAPTX, MINDX and others)
T Rowe Price Funds do a nice job in other EM markets (TREMX, TRAMX, PRLAX, PRMSX, PREMX)

Hank, I agree with you about the past 15 years don't have anything to do with the coming 15 years. But let's not attribute that only to the James fund. That statement covers ALL funds. Assuming Vanguard has a better research department than James for arguments sake, that in itself doesn't mean that the Vanguard fund will get a better return with less risk. There are plenty of Vanguard actively managed funds that aren't great, notwithstanding their deeper bench. (more researchers means better research?)
I just don't see anybody being right or wrong in this discussion. Each investor has his (or her) reasons for preferring a specific fund. Then what ends up happening in the future is anybody's guess. I own both VWINX and GLRBX, plus other allocation funds, just because I prefer to use different funds because they don't invest in the exact same way.

Yes, the Balanced fund has done very well. M* likes it. But, you're not buying the performance of the past 10-15 years. You're buying the performance of the NEXT 10-15 years. Big difference. Do as you will. And you will. Were it me, I'd stick with a larger company with a deeper management team, better research capabilities and more competitive fees. There's so many I won't start to name them. Or, as I think Mona and others would suggest, go with an index fund or other offering from low cost leader Vanguard.

Yup, Wellington Management certainly fits your description. And if I were looking for a Conservative Allocation fund for my taxable account, I would in fact go with VTMFX over GLRBX.
Mona

Umm ... Mona's correct of course. I've never quite gotten the obsession with James Funds. This is a family run outfit. I doubt they have the deep research staff and capabilities of some of the big players. Dad runs the outfit, along with a couple sons who manage funds if my memory serves me correctly. Dad was an Air Force officer and fighter pilot.
They have some top performers like Golden Rainbow. But, in keeping with the flying motif tonight, they also flew their market neutral fund (JAMNX) into the ground a decade ago. Crashed and burned. Now they've come out with a new version of that prior disaster, a long-short fund (JAZZX). Like its predecessor, it's off to a hot start and money is flowing in. But keep your seat-belt buckled. And with a 2.6% ER, we all know who the real winner is on that one.
Yes, the Balanced fund has done very well. M* likes it. But, you're not buying the performance of the past 10-15 years. You're buying the performance of the NEXT 10-15 years. Big difference. Do as you will. And you will. Were it me, I'd stick with a larger company with a deeper management team, better research capabilities and more competitive fees. There's so many I won't start to name them. Or, as I think Mona and others would suggest, go with an index fund or other offering from low cost leader Vanguard.
Just a thought - The Lipper Scorecard (at Marketwatch) does a great job rating tax efficiency of funds. If you haven't already, try to locate a better alternative using that resource.
Regards

Re "Underspending"
I love the old pilots' saying about two things in flying that can do you no good: (1) the runway behind you and (2) the sky above you.
I think that's applicable to a lot of things in life including saving and investing. We live comfortably and take what we need from our savings. We're probably guilty of "underspending".
Like the pilot who doesn't need to use up all the available runway to get airborn, we feel more secure than we might otherwise by having some extra savings. We won't feel we've "wasted" our money should we fail to use it all up before we die. There's an old joke about wanting to die completely broke. But, for peace of mind ... I hope we don't.

Comparing GLRBX and VWIAX is not quite comparing apples and oranges, but perhaps oranges and tangerines. One is a 50/50 stock/bond fund. The other is a 40/60.
That VWIAX has performed as well is a testament to the 83 basis point ER advantage it enjoys. You can see this by looking at the average 10 year performance for moderate allocation funds (typically 60/40) and conservative allocation funds (typically 40/60). The former returned an average 6.41%, the latter 5.15%.
So an allocation fund with 10% less in stocks than GLRBX might have been expected to underperform by about 0.63% (half the difference between the two averages). But VWIAX performed about the same, despite this allocation headwind. The 0.83% ER advantage pretty much explains this.
VWIAX has 10% more in bonds than does GLRBX. Of course it's expected to be less tax efficient. But it's also going to be less volatile.
Its 10 year standard deviation (you're looking back to 2008) is 6.13, while GLRBX's is 6.93. That's likely part of why M* rates the former as below average risk, while it rates the latter as average to above average, depending on time frame.
Losing money in the 2008-09 bear market: For both funds, their worst quarter was the first quarter of 2009. GLRBX lost 7.09% (from its 2010 prospectus). VWIAX did better, losing less than 6.69% (that's how much the Investor class shares lost, per 2010 prospectus).
If you want an orange (50/50 allocation) instead of a tangerine (40/60 allocation) you might try equal parts of Wellesley and Wellington. Just a thought, I haven't crunched the numbers.

The "big deal with it" is the 3, 5, 10 and 15 year Standard Deviation.
Regarding the the tax cost ratio as being "big drag on performance", I hold VWIAX in a non-taxable account, so there is no tax drag.
As I said, "the ER is just about the only metric you can be certain will be the same the next day. And, 83 basis points does not come for free. It's a significant drag, that if overcome, will be through increased risk"
Mona

If you check my original post, I am talking about my taxable account, so the TCR means something to me -- especially considering the 10 year pre-tax returns are essentially the same on the two funds.
Did you note my other reasons for switching?
P.S.: I am -- and was -- well aware of their slightly different allocations.

Leroy,
I tried my best to get you to understand the "obsession" with low expenses.
Mona

So what is the big deal with it? The tax cost ratio is also a big drag on performance.
Anybody?

The "big deal with it" is the 3, 5, 10 and 15 year Standard Deviation.
Regarding the the tax cost ratio as being "big drag on performance", I hold VWIAX in a non-taxable account, so there is no tax drag.
As I said, "the ER is just about the only metric you can be certain will be the same the next day. And, 83 basis points does not come for free. It's a significant drag, that if overcome, will be through increased risk"
Mona

Leroy,
Because, as the sun rises from the east, the ER is just about the only metric you can be certain will be the same the next day. And, 83 basis points does not come for free. It's a significant drag, that if overcome, will be through increased risk.
Mona

Schwab and Morningstar both show the 10 year returns as:
VWIAX: 7.40%
GLRBX: 7.42% (Ted's link above shows GLRBX as being even a bit farther ahead)
Call it a wash.
However, the (M*) after-tax 10-year returns are:
VWIAX: 5.84%
GLRBX: 6.56%
That, along with GLRBX's better bear performance, and the ability to buy more shares with no fee, leaned me in its direction. Will it be the better choice in ten year's time? Who knows, and who knows if I'll even be alive then.

Assuming it takes 16 years to break even if you take SS at age 62 then everyone who dies between 62 and 78 will come out ahead by taking it early. Also, as Dee points out above, getting the money when you're more capable of enjoying it should be weighted somehow. Do you really care if you're getting paid more in social security if it's only going to a nursing home? This doesn't seem to me to be a rationally solvable problem (if there's a spouse to consider or various taxable issues it may be different). There's also the old adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush. I don't care how confident about the future of Social Security you may be, you can't foretell the future with any exactitude. I'm 60 and my inclination is to begin taking it at 62, but I don't think I'd argue the point either way for anyone else.

Here's a very good article from the American Association of Individual Investors explaining the old classification system (growth, growth & income, etc.) that Ramsey is using. Not surprisingly, it dates from 1999.
The only nit I have to pick with it is that I've seen a distinction drawn between "growth and income" funds and "equity income" funds. G&I funds are often defined as equity funds that invest for growth (i.e. that the stocks will rise in price), but are also interested in dividends as a bonus (a "secondary objective").
In contrast, traditional equity income funds buy stocks primarily for their dividends. Any growth (increase in stock price) is just a pleasant extra. Historically, these invested in heavily regulated industries (back when there were heavily regulated industries), such as utilities. The government more or less guaranteed a given profit to utilities in exchange for their serving the public good (under regulation). So almost all the value was in the "guaranteed" dividends. The securities bought by these funds were stocks, but behaved more like bonds.
When I first started investing, I read all these words, and they made sense, but it took a long time for them to sink in to the point that I really appreciated the distinctions. So get what you can out of it (and anything else you read) - after some time it will get clearer.