I am still holding SEMPX and IOFIX. Low interest rates, low unemployment, housing construction going up all around where I live...continue to hold both.

HSGFX is a terrible fund. I always start with best performers and then look for great risk attribute(SD,max draw,Sharpe,Sortino).
That lead me to SGIIX,FAIRX,OAKBX) 2000-2008.
In the last several years I have uses 1) USMV instead of the SP500 2) PRWCX for allocation 3) PIMIX for multisector until 2017 and since then IOFIX,JMSIX,JMUIX
You get moderated off the M* forum and end up here. You are great at posting after the fact of unsubstantiated trades. You have been offered over $1000 to provide just a year or two of monthly trading statements but refuse. You have been asked to post in real time the day of your trades not days and weeks afterwards but you refuse. IOFIX? You are been vociferous the past year on your dislike of this fund. What exactly are your present holdings and % of total portfolio as of this morning. That is not a difficult question. In my 50 plus years in the game from what I have seen over at M* you are the worst trader I have ever witnessed. And I have dealt with thousands of traders.
Can’t you just post your analysis which many enjoy and leave out all the fiction of your after the fact trading exploits. I may have to dust off my Crooks Con Men, and Charlatans thread.
Edit. Here is a thread today over ar M*. Read carefully the comments from Bazinga. A most accurate analysis of the Great Pretender
https://community.morningstar.com/t5/Community-Feedback/Is-the-FD-on-Bonds-thread-locked/m-p/26018#M1312

IOFIX offers a pure-play into one of our favorite areas of the bond market, non-agency MBS.
The trade on legacy non-agency MBS is waning, thanks to lower rates and improving homeowner balance sheets.
The fund is a great play to add defense to your portfolio while generating a fairly safe 5%+ yield.

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.

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.

You are correct, PV has 2 choices monthly or yearly performance. This means the -0.87 is per one whole month.
I looked carefully (I hope) and that day last Nov was the worse one day decline in 3 years, I found several more days with -0.6 to -0.8%

@junkster I was writing about funds back when those studies on new funds came out and a few things come to mind:
1. In the 1990s many new small cap and growth funds were launched that benefitted from extra IPO allocation to hot dot.com stocks like Pets.com and
Webvan. Van Wagoner , Turner Microcap Growth, Strong and Janus funds come to mind. Some of them ultimately got in trouble for juicing their new fund returns with more shares of these IPOs than other funds at the shop and not acknowledging that it was IPOs doing the heavy lifting and that once the funds grew in size the IPO effect wouldn’t last. In fact, many of those IPOs subsequently flamed out. In any case, times have changed and we no longer have a 1990s IPO market for new funds to benefit from.
2. I am fairly certain those Kobren and Charles Schwab studies did not adjust for survivorship bias. I would have to check but I did write about them back then—favorably too I believe—and I recall no mention of survivor bias. Please provide any evidence of the new fund effect that adjusts for survivor bias today if you have it. I doubt there is any evidence for it as I see bad new funds liquidated every day. In fact, their liquidations are tracked here. Nor is this to say I am against new funds. But I think newness must be accompanied with additional quantitative and qualitative research, the kind David does on this site. Fees should be part of that research in my view, and there is far more evidence of fees importance to performance than the new fund effect.
3. Think of the kind of fund this is and what it’s investing in—non-agency debt. That debt has in the past become extraordinarily illiquid during times of market stress. And funds that invested in it have been crushed due to illiquidity. I suggest MFOers look up the Regions Morgan Keegan funds if they doubt the risks of a liquidity crunch. Such a sector is not the best fit for a mutual fund that must provide daily liquidity in my view especially if the fund concentrates in that sector to a high degree over more liquid mortgage bonds. The sector meanwhile is shrinking each year.
4. At $2 billion in assets this fund collects $30 million in fees a year. At $3 billion it collects $45 million. The team required to investigate this one sector of the market must be highly compensated with that fee. Are they earning it with good Individual security selection or by concentrating in the riskiest sectors of the mortgage market more so than their lower cost peers. Regions Morgan Keegan once had a great record too before the housing bust by taking such risks.
5. In a highly illiquid sector money managers often use a pricing system called fair value for estimating securities value in the portfolio. That can make the fund seem a lot more stable than it actually is and hides risk. It also creates an incentive for fraud in how securities prices are marked.

At the beginning of every mutual fund prospectus is generally a little seemingly innocuous sentence: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. So what if it's been hot in the past? The only question that matters to anyone reading this right now is--Will it continue to be? Time and again, fees or all-in costs have been the strongest most consistent indicator of future performance. Are low costs always the best predictor? No, that's why people come to this site. But Morningstar is absolutely right to ding this fund for charging a 1.5% expense ratio on $3.3 billion in assets when bond funds that specialize in non-agency debt can be had for much less.

"... It attracted more capital in last quarter of 2017 than in the first six quarters of its existence. It ended the year with $1.6B, five times the level it started the year..."
Jeepers. Is that a lotta "dumb money," then? Thanks for replying, all of you. I track IOFIX but don't own it. I own PTIAX, which is not quite the same animal, but in the same ballpark, right?