BPTRX: 1st bought 1/9/20 at 72.57, close position 3/11/21 at 171.21. MSSMX: 1st bought 10/6/20 at 15.06, close position 3/11/21 at 23.23.

Lynn, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, especially on GAVAX. I look forward to reading your commentary on non correlated assets. Your articles have really helped me, and I’m using MFO screeners more and more. I feel indebted.

Rick, Here is what I started doing. I divide my funds into three groups 1) Mixed Asset, 2) Uncorrelated, and 3) the tactical sleeve. The first two categories are buy and hold and as long as the quality of the fund is intact, I don't worry about performance. For the tactical funds, I track the previous month return, three month trend, and flows. If they are negative, I have to ask myself why? Is the fund peaking or is it blip.
On GAVIX/GAVAX, which is an uncorrelated fund, see below. The Ulcer Index is about half of the S&P 500 meaning half as risky. The average three year return is 7.4% which is good for a conservative fund. The Composite MFO Rating is 2 which is below average (3). It is not very consistent, which is not a major flaw, and it's capital preservation is good. The one month return is down as is the three month trend, and money is flowing out. The yield is 2.2%. What I like is that the correlation to the S&P 500 is only 0.58 which is low, and the downside capture is only 9.7 which is why it has a good capital preservation rating of 4.
APR 7.4
Ulcer Index 2.9
Martin Ratio 2.13
Composite Rating 2
Consistency 1
Preservation 4
1 Month -1.87
Trend -0.6
Flow -1.8
Yield 2.24
Correlation SP500 0.58
Down Cap S&P 500 9.7
The stats are good for GAVIX. I track 81 uncorrelated funds, and GAVIX rates 58. The composite rating of 2 is the only thing that I don't like. For my next MFO article, I identify six potential uncorrelated funds to own. These are COTZX, ARBIX, DEVDX, RLSIX, SPEDX, and SUBFX. I am still researching these, but already own COTZX and ARBIX.

Each month, I download hundreds of ETFS and generally require that they have at least three years of history, and at least $100M in assets before up loading them into my Ranking System. I maintain a list of funds that have at least $100M but aren't three years old. This is a short listing of the funds:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4438107-infant-exchange-traded-funds-attracting-inflows
ESGV, BBAX, USSG, SUSL, IVOL, VSGX, EAGG, RPAR, VCMDX, PTBD, SWAN, DRSK, NTSX, NUSI, LDSF, XLSR, JCPB, PTIN, MUST
All but three of these funds have lower risk than the S&P 500 as measured by the Ulcer Index. These funds either have positive three-month trends or inflows. All but one fund have earned more than 6 percent annualized.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-mutual-fund-rose-140-in-a-year-11625519533
* Morgan Stanley mutual fund skippered by Dennis Lynch tops our quarterly survey of the best-performing stock-fund managers in the past 12 months*
You can incognito search article title for content
Couple interesting MF out there. Anyone bought these funds previously?
MSSGX
BPTRX
Brsvx
today winners maybe tomorrow poor looser

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908802/000139834421014025/fp0066718_497.htm
497 1 fp0066718_497.htm
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e) and Rule 497(k)
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
File Registration No.: 033-65632
SCHRODER SERIES TRUST
(the “Trust”)
Schroder Long Duration Investment-Grade Bond Fund
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated July 6, 2021
to the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”), each dated March 1, 2021, as supplemented
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI, and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI.
The Board of Trustees of the Trust, at the recommendation of Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser of the Fund, has approved a plan of liquidation providing for the liquidation of the Fund’s assets and the distribution of the net proceeds pro rata to the Fund’s shareholders. In connection therewith, the Fund is closed to new investments. The Fund is expected to cease operations and liquidate on or about September 30, 2021 (the “Liquidation Date”). The Liquidation Date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.
Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem (sell) their shares in the manner described in the “How to Sell Shares” section of the Prospectus. For those shareholders that do not redeem (sell) their shares prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute to each such shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash distribution equal in value to the shareholder’s interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the Liquidation Date.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, the Adviser may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate the Fund’s orderly liquidation, such as by holding cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
The liquidation distribution amount will include any accrued income and capital gains, will be treated as a payment in exchange for shares and will generally be a taxable event for shareholders investing through taxable accounts. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation. Liquidation costs will be accrued on the date of this Supplement and shareholders remaining in the Fund on the Liquidation Date will not be charged any additional fees by the Fund associated with the liquidation. Shareholders will receive liquidation proceeds as soon as practicable after the Liquidation Date.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
SCH-SK-015-0100

Well, Hussman is still the king of perma-bears. Does anybody hold any of his mutual funds? Even his defense is questionable, and there is no offense.

He’s done somewhat better recently. But for 10 years you’d still be underwater. Wonder what they’d say if you phoned and asked them why that’s the case. I did something like that once years ago with a different fund. The response was: “Our manager has been positioning himself.”
HSGFX 10-Year Chart from Lipper (shaded dark blue.)

SVARX works hard (ER over 3%) to produce an upside of 128 and a downside of (-53). Help me understand the negative downside capture number.
Explanation of Upside and Downside Capture:
https://freefincal.com/how-upside-and-downside-capture-ratios-are-calculated/

SVARX is currently my largest bond fund holding so was curious about this. The answer is kind of what I expected:

In principle, it is possible to see a negative downside capture ratio. In that case, it means that the manager has a negative beta on average, i.e. the manager went up when markets went down. This, of course, is very hard to achieve consistently.

Upside downside capture - Breaking Down Finance

Great thread. Personally though, playing O-F-F-E-N-S-E at the moment given the recent start of the rotation back into big tech. To wit, bought AMZN last week. UP a very quick 7% on the heels of today's 5% pop.

I like to look at upside and downside cature ratios of mutual funds to see how defensive a fund is. The Morningstar site provides this data (look in the "risk" tab). When I use Portfolio Visulaizer's data it appears inconsistent with M* (FWIW). You may to constrain PV to the last ten years of data to match M*'s data. PV data can go back to 1985 if the fund is that old.
One of the best funds for this type of risk/reward is PRMTX. Here's its risk profile (Upside=114 / Downside=65):
https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/prmtx/risk
Some others I hold:
FSMEX (100/58)...100% of the upside with 58% of the downside
PRWCX (117/88)
PRNHX (108/69)
PRHSX (98/71)
PRGSX (122/86)
A fund like CTFAX has a (78 upside cature/13 downside capture) so this fund captures 78% of the upside (reward) while only taking 13% of the downside risk. Pretty good risk/reward.
SVARX works hard (ER over 3%) to produce an upside of 128 and a downside of (-53). Help me understand the negative downside capture number.
Some other notables in this thread:
TGHNX (123/72)
Explanation of Upside and Downside Capture:
https://freefincal.com/how-upside-and-downside-capture-ratios-are-calculated/

“Red flag special” MWFSX
It’s so new Lipper hasn’t yet created a scorecard for it. 105% in bonds means they’re borrowing to exercise leverage. Yahoo doesn’t show duration or credit quality. But, @msf has indicated 25% below B Yikes!
Here’s Moody’s rating scale from Wikipedia Hopefully, I got the cut and paste of the chart correct. Not all junk is created equal. Some good income funds (DODIX) dabble in the BB area. Few decent funds want to go below B, although some of their BB will occasionally fall to the B level.
B2 B B B3 B− B− Highly speculative
Caa1 CCC+ C CCC C 5 Substantial risks
Caa2 CCC Extremely speculative
Caa3 CCC− Default imminent with little prospect for recovery
Most experienced investors are aware the junk bond market is not very liquid. Even daily pricing is suspect and sometimes inaccurate. During good times a fund like this can sail along posting nice returns. On those rare eventful occasions (2008 and early 2020 come to mind) these funds can submerge literally overnight. Per Warren Buffett: "It's only when the tide goes out that you learn who's been swimming naked."
One of the better threads we’ve had in a while. Thanks to @lynnbolin2021 for joining in / sharing considerable knowledge and data.

Has anyone considered defensive equity funds?
Performance of both cyclical and defensive equity sectors (from @Derf's Schwab link):

Taking a quick look at MWFSX, I couldn't help but notice that M* reports a rather suspiciously high SEC yield of 8.55%! Just curious how that is possible in today's low interest rate environment? Certainly raises a red flag for me.

MWFSX : ER is a turn off for me. Wavier will expire the end of July '21 , if I'm reading fees correctly.

I did address these, but tersely, and I concur with the concerns.
Fees: I suggested MWFSX as an alternative to EIXIX, which has a fee waiver expiring end of Oct '21. Without speculating on the relative likelihood of either waiver being extended, it does not seem to me that this is more of a concern for MWFSX than for EIXIX.
As stated, the high SEC yield comes from the low average weighted price of the holdings - under 90% of par. Think of YTM for a single bond. The greater the discount, the greater the YTM. The SEC yield of MWFSX is not coming from the coupons, which average 3.52%; that's not much more than EIXIX's 3.26%. EIXIX's SEC yield, while not as stratospheric, is above 5%, which is still rather rare outside of EM bonds and TIPS.
Long duration bonds can sell at large discounts simply because there are so many below market rate semiannual coupon payments for which the discount must compensate. But when the duration is short and there's still a significant discount, that's a strong indication that you're deep into junk. Indeed, over ¼ of MWFSX's portfolio is below B, while its duration is a modest 2.94 years.
At least I know that, because Met West (now a TCW subsidiary) is a transparent company. I know that over 60% of the portfolio securities (weighted) have durations under 1 year. I have no idea what the average credit quality or duration is of EIXIX, let alone a bar chart of credit quality or duration for its portfolio holdings. I just have to assume it's in a similar ballpark to MWFSX based on the few data points already described.

Hi, msf:
Taking a quick look at MWFSX, I couldn't help but notice that M* reports a rather suspiciously high SEC yield of 8.55%! Just curious how that is possible in today's low interest rate environment? Certainly raises a red flag for me.
Fred

Was looking for a HY bond fund that had held up decently ("defensive?") in 1Q 2020. Found EIXIX with a 5.5% SEC Yield.
I took only a cursory look at EIXIX so all I've got are lots of questions, not clear statements:

• What is the average credit rating for this fund? Is it really "high yield" aka "junk"? The annual report says:

  These securities that the Fund invests in are at or near the top of the capital structure, which make them relatively insulated from losses by the deal structure’s credit enhancement (i.e. preference over bonds junior to the respective tranche we are buying)

  It makes it sound like it's investing in the most senior tranches - the ones rated AAA before the GFC.
  
• The annual report also says that it "invests primarily in ... non-agency residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) that were created pre-crisis", i.e. legacy RMBS. By definition they're not issuing more of these. What is the size of that pool? How will the fund invest going forward?
  
• What is the average duration of the portfolio? The latest semiannual report seems to show most of the holding having non-fixed rates. That would suggest a very short duration. In addition, both the annual and semiannual report tell of a smattering (< 5%) interest only securities. They have negative duration, further shortening the portfolio's average duration.
  
• If most of the holdings are variable rate, which generally trade near par (little interest rate risk), what accounts for the average weighted price being just 82% of par (per M*)? This is why the SEC yield is so high - it's building in an increase in price as bonds approach maturity. (M* notes that "neither TTM nor SEC yields reflect the potential impact of future defaults.")
  Is the credit risk so severe? The annual report suggests that it is: "Legacy non-agency RMBS have measurable credit risk." It reports 18.2% of the underlying loans are 60+ days delinquent.

I haven't read up on legacy non-agency RBMSs. So all I can do is raise these questions. I don't know which numbers are most meaningful for this type of holding or what sort of risk profile they present. As I said, questions, not answers.
With respect to the 1Q20 performance, EIXIX had a drawdown of 13.76% between March 5 and March 25 (per M* interactive chart tool). M* provides tabular monthly data, that shows EIXIX losing 8.30% in March. Looking at an entire quarter gives you information about speed of recovery but less insight into the magnitude of risk.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=EIXIX
For better 1Q20, March 2020, and max drawdown (daily) figures, I might look at MWFSX. It went up in 1Q20 by 1.23% (vs EIXIX dropping 6.79%). It went down in March by 1.92% (vs. EIXIX dropping 8.30%). And it's max drawdown in 2020 was 5.57% between March 5 and March 25.
All that said, it's fairly similar to EIXIX, and thus suffers from some of the same risk factors. Except that it has much greater transparency (you can find its portfolio statistics here), is more diversified ("only" 2/3 in securitized debt), and is managed by a first rate, well known team.
Portfolio Visualizer comparison.

Currently, due to high equity valuations, my portfolio's limited equity exposure is confined to these three defensive funds: CTFAX, JHQAX and VWINX. For the bond portion I use CLMAX, NVHAX and RCTIX, along with the bond-like alternative fund ARBIX. The rest of my portfolio, roughly 15%, is in cash and may find a temporary home in SH, the inverse equity ETF, during the next market crash.
Since my retirement, I have found the advice of another poster always very helpful: "I don't really need a lot more money - but I certainly don't want to lose a lot. I need to remind myself to err on the side of caution."
In the current market environment, I am quite satisfied if my annual total return is within a range of 4 to 6%.
Good luck, and many thanks to Lynn Bolin for his valuable contributions.
Fred

Was looking for a HY bond fund that had held up decently ("defensive?") in 1Q 2020. Found EIXIX with a 5.5% SEC Yield. $2,500 min at VGD (TF). May be my newest addition.
Looked at GAVAX, gave up quickly on that. Sold my SWAN and DRSK. Not sure that TMSRX is going to be a keeper.
Holding onto my ARBIX and HRSAX.
Recently bought some SVARX and SFHYX (Fido).
Will keep adding to CTFAX (a keeper).
Hiding out in various bond funds (DAAIX, EXCPX, PEGAX, FPFIX, MWFSX, etc) in the hopes equities peel back. Won't hold my breath, though.
Merger arb is stalling a bit this month, but that sleeve will remain (BALPX, MERFX, HMEAX) intact.
Still liking HEGD, just wish average daily volume would increase. Will add here.
D-E-F-E-N-S-E

derf I was looking for a fund, to invest idle cash, with limited correlation to the stock and bond markets. ARBOX has a 1,000 minimum and didn't require 25k like ARBIX. By investing now, I wished to get in the fund before it closed,etc, as Schwab is notorious for listing funds as open to existing shareholders, restricted, or available for institutional customers only. My annual rate of return goal for idle cash is 50 basis points(Marcus money fund pays this) so if this fund only returns 100 or 200 basis points annually, I'm ok with that.

@Rickrmf - I don’t know anything about ARBIX (but that’s never stopped me from voicing an opinion).
M* doesn’t appear to have a rating for it
It scores very well on Lipper. Be aware their “rating” is actually a reflection of recent performance.
- Performance 4/5
- Total Return 4/5
- Capital Preservation 5/5
(Lipper does knock it down on expenses giving it just 1/5 in that area.)
What I think is significant is that the “chainsaw gang” over at Max Funds
rates it fairly highly by their standards:
Good +74/100
What’s really “wild” IMHO is that if you click the “Holdings” tab at Lipper you’ll see that ARBIX has a negative 50% weighting in stocks. That’s some shorting. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.

Great point. The FAANG stocks (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google (Alphabet)) have dominated the broader US index for the past 10 years while the value stocks trailed by sizable margin until late 2020.
As @hank suggested above, it would be a good idea to review the top 10 holdings in each funds in your portfolio on a regular basis. Case in point, the value oriented Wellington fund, VWELX, now holds: Alphabet Inc, Microsoft, Facebook and Apple among the top 10 holdings per 5/31/2021 reporting. The fund is now categorized as blend according to M*. In the same period, Wellesley Income, VWINX holds more the traditional financial, pharma and consumer staples stocks. Also Global Wellington holds only Microsoft as #4 position. Likely I will move fund away from Wellington.

Here's a more detailed history of AMG:
https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/13/Affiliated-Managers-Group-Inc.html
Until I checked, I also thought: "Affiliates operate independently" and "AMG invests in independent investment managers and allows them to remain independent". But it surely can't be coincidence that a large number of AMG branded funds had complete management changes and sometimes radical objective changes in or around March.

AMG is not as hands-off as I once thought.
The firm replaced third-party subadvisors on thirteen mutual funds earlier this year as part of a broad strategy change. AMG's affiliates will now manage $5B in assets previously subadvised by these third parties.
"'Over the past two years, we have evolved our global distribution resources and clarified our strategy for the benefit of our affiliates,’ said AMG president and chief executive Jay Horgen. ‘Focusing our US wealth platform exclusively on in-demand strategies from our affiliates will ensure that clients are choosing from highly differentiated products.'"
Citywire
AMG Fund Updates