Thanks Charles. IOFIX since the crisis bottom has been the bond trade of the decade along with its sisters BDKAX, SEMPX, and others in the beaten down mortgage space. The last such trade was junk corporates in 2009 and before that emerging markets debt in 1999. Back further was junk corporates in 1991. Notice the theme here? Black swan events in 2020 (Covid liquidity crisis) 2008 (housing crisis) 1997/1998 (Asian currency crisis) and 1990 (Drexel Lambert) And after each crisis everyone was too scared to venture back in thinking a repeat is right around the corner. I love the fund company has imposed this fee. It will make for a more stable asset base.

Beginning this month, if sold before 180 days.
https://sec.report/Document/0001580642-20-002771/

It was yielding over 20%. Of course it’s going to go down. Even if it went down by half it would yielding about 10%. As AUM increases, yield will fall. This is happening as expected. It’s also actively managed by Tad Rivelle. They may be trimming their risk. Cash looks to be building.

In the last 4 days it looked like the following
As of Date Ticker Dividend Rate
7/23/2020 MWFSX 0.001582083
7/22/2020 MWFSX 0.001426187
7/21/2020 MWFSX 0.001684689
7/20/2020 MWFSX 0.001714354
If we use 0.0015 daily we get about 4.5% annually.
It is one of the worse performer for one month and 3 months in my list
Ticker..1 Mo...3 Months
MIAYX 3.03 9.85
AIHAX 2.62 2.95
JIPAX 2.6 7.57
ADVNX 2.56 4.91
BMSAX 2.43 8.44
JSTIX 2.41 6.35
PDIIX 2.32 7.89
PLSFX 2.28 9.09
FCDDX 2.25 8.12
STISX 2.23 8.2
JMUTX 2.22 9.38
ASIGX 2.17 6.79
PUCZX 2.1 8.67
FADMX 1.97 7.98
MXIIX 1.73 5.63
JMSIX 1.66 9.01
HSNYX 1.64 10.57
PTIAX 1.61 4.95
IOFIX 1.54 16.42
SEMMX 1.34 10.66
PIMIX 1.3 6.31
TSIIX 1.27 7.29
EIXIX 1.09 8.01
DHEAX 1.08 8.04
VCFAX 0.88 7.78
MWFSX 0.84 4.06
RCTIX 0.43 4.45

@BigTom is right-on in my opinion (on a few things here but we'll discuss liquidity). Investing in a fund with liquidity concerns in today's times is very risky. How soon we forget (?) I learned my lesson with IOFAX and will never purchase another fund with illiquid assets.

I don't own the fund but do you realize that BigTom didn't post any analysis or looked specifically into this fund, so what led you to believe that this fund has a liquidity issue.
Then you mentioned IOFIX. Do IOFIX bond ratings are close to MWFSX? Was the YTD performance similar? So, why do you think MWFSX is similar to IOFIX?
I don't have a bone in this fight, I know several investors that only use Vanguard funds and I wish them good luck but we can't generalize all funds.

Because of the low AUM, they own very illiquid, very high yielding bonds. The volatility of these bonds is probably much higher than what the Morningstar performance chart suggests, but due to the illiquidity, you don’t see the big price swings.

As @LewisBraham wrote, "mutual funds are restricted to a maximum private equity exposure of 15% for liquidity reasons. There have been disastrous examples despite those constraints. f I recall correctly, the Van Wagoner funds were among the worst."
A current SEC regulation prohibits funds from acquiring illiquid securities if they would put the fund over the 15% threshold. Further, should a fund drift over that limit, it is required to create a plan to get the fund back into compliance within a reasonable amount of time.
A key facet of the regulation is its definition of "illiquid": An illiquid investment is an investment that the fund reasonably expects cannot be sold in current market conditions in seven calendar days without significantly changing the market value of the investment.
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/guidance/secg-liquidity.htm
The Van Wagoner funds predate this regulation by a decade or two. So it's not an example of a disaster in spite of this reg. However, Big Tom gave a different example that is more problematic:

An investor only has to look at what happened to Third Avenue Focus Credit fund to see the result.

In theory, if a fund is 15% illiquid, it could sell off all assets for at least 85% of NAV (recovering 100% of the value of its liquid securities by definition, and 0% or more on the illiquid securities).
What happened with Focus Credit was that in no small part because of withdrawals, the fund shrank about 40% in half a year. Even with this stress, the fund barely exceeded the 15% illiquidity limit. Nevertheless, at that point, the fund halted redemptions, saying that it could not sell off enough assets at "rational" prices.
It is worth noting that shareholders ultimately recovered 85% of the NAV as of the date the fund halted redemptions, Dec 9, 2015.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/business/dealbook/a-new-focus-on-liquidity-after-a-funds-collapse.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thirdavenue-settlement-idUSKBN1722N4
Funds like IOFIX must comply with this reg. In fact, the IOFIX summary prospectus says: "The Fund may hold up to 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities."
The poor performance of IOFIX and its close peers suggests there's something inherent in the nature of their portfolios beyond having 15% (or less) in illiquid securities. Such as the remaining securities being liquid most of the time, but not under exceptional conditions (as opposed to the "current market conditions" of the regulation). Which unfortunately is precisely when one demands liquidity.

would you attribute the relatively small 5.2% peak to trough loss from 3/15 to 3/25 to the illiquid nature of many of these holdings not being priced mark to market?

Funds are required to price their securities daily. That this is difficult does not relieve them of this responsibility or allow them to cheat investors by misrepresenting prices. (IMHO the poster child for that sort of cheating is Heartland Funds.) They must mark to market, albeit with fair value pricing as needed.
From the NYTimes article link above:

Regulatory experts say that if the S.E.C. does decide to crack down on Third Avenue, it will be related to this pricing issue ... The message was clear: Mutual fund boards are responsible for making sure that the investment adviser acts responsibly in pricing securities and ensuring there is enough cash on hand for investors looking to sell.
But experts worry that mutual fund boards these days do not have the expertise or the muscle to do this job effectively.

I figure that TCW/MetWest has the necessary expertise.
Regarding volatility, I believe you'll find that this fund is using some of the same techniques that Bob Rodriguez used over at FPNIX to manage a very stable, albeit low-yielding fund. Which brings us full circle back to the question of where those interest payments are coming from.

Some funds use derivatives, leverage and/or high yielding/illiquid bonds to juice returns.

I don't see leverage here, and as I just noted, the other tools can just as easily be used to reduce volatility. Can you point to securities that juiced returns to 18%? I haven't found them yet.

I owned IOFIX on/off for months until I sold almost all my funds to cash on February 29. I posted at this thread earlier (link)
February 29 edited February 29 Flag
@mark
This is a very unique time for me and why I will answer your question:-)
My goals as a retiree are: I need to make only 4.5% including inflation (Based on 2019, maybe I need only 4%) average annually to sustain our standard of living. But, I still want to make 6% with the lowest volatility (SD < 3) and never lose more than 3% from any last top.
YTD mostly in 2 bond funds investing at a higher % in NHMAX + lower % in IOFIX. Last Thursday, I sold half of NHMAX. On Friday, I sold all of NHMAX + most of IOFIX. This YTD (chart) is the answer to why.
Bottom line: I never buy at bottoms because I'm a momentum investor using charts and trends. At the bottom, the trend is down. I only buy when trends are going up.

Interesting. IOFIX, one month, 4.71%

Interesting.
IOFIX -22.8% YTD for a BOND fund.

Interesting. IOFIX, one month, 4.71%

I don't promote anything.

This is exactly the type of fund I love to own. Great managers, new fund, small AUM, under the radar fund. In the Multi sector bond category it has the best year to date performance + great volatility + very high yield. The fund has about 50% in MBS/securitized and about 55% in IG(investment grade) bonds, duration about 2.7.

My numbers are from TCW(

link) then Portfolio Composition.
You can see SD compared to PIMIX,JMUTX,PUCZX since inception, see PV(link)

Why are you still 'pumping' risky funds with low SD?
SD deviation does not necessarily equate to risk.
Haven't you learned from the other funds you 'pumped' like SEMMX, IOFFX, JMUTX and PUCZX because they have short term 'momentum' with low SD?
Some of these funds were down 17% in one month.
Promoting a fund which has a small AUM, risky assets and low liquidity is irresponsible.
If investors flee from small AUM funds, it will put pressure on the fund to sell illiquid assets. The fund will be selling these illiquid assets at huge discounts resulting in significant losses.
An investor only has to look at what happened to Third Avenue Focus Credit fund to see the result.
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/11/third-avenue-to-liquidate-junk-bond-fund-that-bet-big-on-illiquid-assets.html

Here we go again. We haven't seen you for a while.
Just because I like a fund doesn't mean you should own it. Do your own due diligence. I have used it for my own purposes successfully.
Even a fund with 1-3 billion in AUM doesn't guarantee to be liquid. In 2008 money market fund broke the buck(link)
VCIT, about 100% investment-grade fund from Vanguard, lost about 13% from peak to trough. It did recover after the Fed promised to buy bonds but you could not forecast that.
When a black swan shows up bad things happen.
There is a reason for..."Past performance is no guarantee of future results"
Now, if you have any data please post about it. Is this fund resembles SEMMX,IOFIX or Third Avenue Focus Credit fund?

This is exactly the type of fund I love to own. Great managers, new fund, small AUM, under the radar fund. In the Multi sector bond category it has the best year to date performance + great volatility + very high yield. The fund has about 50% in MBS/securitized and about 55% in IG(investment grade) bonds, duration about 2.7.

My numbers are from TCW(

link) then Portfolio Composition.
You can see SD compared to PIMIX,JMUTX,PUCZX since inception, see PV(link)

Why are you still 'pumping' risky funds with low SD?
SD deviation does not necessarily equate to risk.
Haven't you learned from the other funds you 'pumped' like SEMMX, IOFIX, JMUTX and PUCZX because they have short term 'momentum' with low SD?
Some of these funds were down 17% in one month.
Promoting a fund which has a small AUM, risky assets and low liquidity is irresponsible.
If investors flee from small AUM funds, it will put pressure on the fund to sell illiquid assets. The fund will be selling these illiquid assets at huge discounts resulting in significant losses.
An investor only has to look at what happened to Third Avenue Focus Credit fund to see the result.
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/11/third-avenue-to-liquidate-junk-bond-fund-that-bet-big-on-illiquid-assets.html

I know next to squat about bonds but on the hunch that the managers of ANGL (Van Eck Vectors/Fallen Angel High Yield fund) might find some new angels in the dumpster after the market puke I anted in about six weeks ago. It's been a good ride.
p.s. I also added to IOFIX as if to emphasize my lack of bond knowledge.

Hi @hank
With what I will state were more normal periods for bonds and their yields; that if the Fed. is going to further intervene in attempting to "adjust" the yield curves among Treasury maturities, I've lost my view of real demand by the remainder of what were the traditional buyers of Treasury bonds Meaning, I don't know if bond pricing is what it is because of normal demand OR also being played with by the Fed. , too.
We have more than enough investment grade bond exposure, and our sell is directed towards the longer maturity issues and those holdings.
The sell fits our mix, and is not a recommendation for anyone else.
Will the AAA bond game start again for profits??? We'll discover what happens in this area when the bloated equity markets get picked on by the ALGO machines.
Bonds can be a very important part of a portfolio. But, many here have discovered they didn't really understand what was inside a bond portfolio. I exclude the IOFIX and its extreme performance. More than enough information about bond ratings and types of bonds has been discussed here in the past several months; and the amount of information for study on the net should allow most to have a better understanding of bonds.
I/we really don't like to be "cash". But, for now; we'll observe.
Take care,
Catch

Looks like ANBEX responded amazingly at the end of February, beginning of March. I hold the Fidelity multi-sector bond FADMX, it did not fair well. Similar to GWMEX.
Seems to me It’s hard to get apples to apples comparisons. I hold BBN and would like to compare it to the Hy-yield munis listed but most tools wouldn’t allow me to compare an OEF to a CEF. And if they did , I’m not sure if BBNs distributions are included.
One more thought, IOFIX got waxed in March. Hope nobody here was holding it!

In fairness to anyone invested in IOFIX, no one could ever predict a bond fund losing 40%, and a nontransparent, at least from what I read, fact sheet, to boot. It's a fuck me situation.

1) my favorite 3 bond categories. Multisector, NonTrad, HY Muni. Since 2019 I also use HY Munis in my IRA, it's unusual but I look at risk/reward, and this category given me good results. Schwab let you buy these funds in IRA (after you acknowledged it) but not Fidelity.
2) concentration, usually 3 funds but many times one fund over 50% like now.
3) all my funds must perform well, at least not losing. It's not necessary the best performance but a good risk/reward.
4) SD=volatility is very high on my list. If any bond fund I own loses more than 0.5% from the last top I start asking why. If it loses 1% from its last top I sell immediately in most cases. Did others in the same category follow? can I find a better fund? the HY Muni bonds are similar but Multi+NonTrad can be unique. IOFIX/EIXIX are different than more typical JMUTX/PUCZX multi.
5) charts+trends are my friends, they tell me much more what is going now than most articles/opinions/experts.
6) be flexible, look at markets in general. Are they "normal", crazy?
special situations call for a different approach.
Example1: the Fed announced they will increase rates a couple of years ago. Bank loans is usually one of the best categories.
Example2: we had a meltdown last March, what funds I want to use. I found ANBEX. I haven't used the high-rated bond fund for years.
7) I'm a trader, this means I may hold weeks/months or switch earlier and it could be a huge % of my portfolio.

The basics are still the same: Know what you own, expect the worse(which is what I do) and past performance and volatility are not guaranteed.

I call BS on that advice FD. None of what you said is usable. This was a fund with good consistent returns and a very low STD to boot. It would have been easier to interpret the risk if the funds literature would have been more accurate, especially on liquidity and possible fire-sale risk. The fund collapsed 45% before the dust could settle. 40% within 2 days. Trading limits on mutual funds that only allow trades after the market closes gives an investor 2 days as the quickest reaction time to unload. Most here aren't day traders so your advice on this fund is worthless.
Sorry, but your infallible preaching is a bit nauseating.

Well, several quotes from the past
1) 2-28-2020-According to MFO databased when you search for Multi sector funds for 3 years + best martin ratio you get the following funds
Fund performance ANFIX 5.3 IOFIX 10.6 SEMMX 5.1 BDKNX 5.7 ANGLX 4.2
2) 2-29-2020-I'm taking my profit and watching. There is no way to be sure how IOFIX will do if markets go wild
3) 3-3/2020-There is no guarantee of what will happen in the future. I think the worse was in 11/2018 when IOFIX lost more than 1% in one day.
Over the years:
I have watched IOFIX jumping 2-3 times annually 2-3% within days while others didn't.
In 2008 MBS got crushed. ORNAX(HY Muni) fell over 40% and more than others.
I can't remember the fund name but it was a bond fund in 2010-11 that I owned, sold before it crashed and you couldn't sell it for years.
Look at the above, item 3, how can a fund make 10% annually which is double than most in its category. IOFIX is an exotic fund with illiquid bonds and its daily pricing is just a guesstimation. When something looks too good to be true, it usually is
So, with the above in mind, I always watched IOFIX very carefully and was in/out over the years.
Did I know it will crash over 40%? of course not, but I thought 20% was a possibility.
As a trader, I also have specific guidelines. Prior to retirement, I would sell any bond fund that lost 3%, after retirement, it's just 1%.
I also learned years ago while trading stocks that when markets get wild and you try to sell a stock with low volume, it can go down 30% in seconds while QQQ,SPY go down just several %.
BTW, I also sold my other riskier fund which was NHMAX(HY MUNI), prior to the crash and it lost over 22%.
If you still think the above is BS, then be it :-)

Re: IOFIX
Somehow received (Lipper’s) “Multi-sector income” classification
1.50% ER / Inception: May 2015
The chart : Steady climb upward following inception, gaining over 50% for investors in fewer than 5 years - during an era of 2% (or lower) interest rates on investment grade paper. Leverage and / or derivatives had at work to achieve that stunning record. Dropped completely “off the radar” in mid-March and plunged to the ground with breathtaking speed. Without really having the data, obviously there was a rapid exodus of investors heading for the gate when things started to come unglued. Harkens back to the liquidity issue addressed by many here, including Lewis Braham most recently.
I’ve never observed a chart like that nor seen a fund fall so precipitously so fast. I can empathize with those who were taken to the cleaners. (There but for the grace of God ... ) On the other hand, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. The only thing remotely similar in my memory would be Oppenheimer’s “Core Bond” and their “Champion Income” funds - both of which imploded in 2008 and resulted in numerous (successful) lawsuits. The difference: Oppenheimer was a large long established full-feature fund house and the travesty involved a couple funds that had been in existence many years. For some reason they decided to reach for yield and ended up wrecking the funds ... likely contributing to their own future demise.

Fact sheets (compare and contrast before and after):
http://web.archive.org/web/20190411093154/http://alphacentricfunds.com/funds/IncomeOpp/FactSheet.pdf (4Q2018)
http://alphacentricfunds.com/funds/IncomeOpp/FactSheet.pdf (1Q2020)
A few things stand out to me. One concerns investments in asset-backed securities (ABS).
The current (August 2019) prospectus (see Lewis' link) says that "The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by primarily investing in asset-backed fixed income securities ... and non-agency residential and commercial mortgages". Yet in both late 2018 and early 2020 the fund had less than ½% in ABS. For that matter, no commercial mortgages at all.
But there was a change in how the fact sheet described the fund's investments.
4Q2018: overlooked segments of RMBS, ABS, and securitized markets
1Q2020: primarily non-agency RBMS and other residential housing debt (ABS is omitted)
Risk/reward changes also stood out.
4Q2018: Sharpe ratio 2.22, std dev 3.81%
1Q2020: Sharpe ratio: 0.03, std dev 17.86%
current (M*): Sharpe ratio: , std dev 23.38%
Finally, here's the main supplement, dated March 23, to the current prospectus. (There are two others; one is for change of address, the other is for load waivers.)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064220001282/alphacentric497s.htm
To the section on liquidity risk, it added two sentences, saying that the coronavirus affected liquidity in fixed income markets "including many of the securities the Fund holds." It went on to say that "it is more likely" (than before, I guess) that the fund will conduct fire sales to meet redemptions.
To the market risk section, it added two paragraphs of boilerplate about war, terrorism, public health, depressions, etc. This addition, unlike the first, applied to all AlphaCentric funds.

I've included a link for all of the IOFIX SEC filings.
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=C000153407&action=getcompany&scd=filings
http://www.garpc.com/iofix/

Does anyone have a copy or link to pre-Covid meltdown marketing materials or prospectus to above mentioned fund(s)?