It is hard to imagine a more backward conclusion than this. Who on earth does he think is offering active, non-transparent ETFs? Oh, yes, the mutual fund companies.
American Century, Fidelity, T. Rowe Price ... The mutual fund companies have faced two major impediments. One, an antiquated regulatory system designed in 1940 and periodically patched since then. That system imposes a series of direct and indirect expenses on OEFs (state registration fees and taxation of realized capital gains, e.g.) that ETF regulations do not. One fund company president who is looking to transition one of his smaller funds directly into a non-transparent ETF estimates that regulation and the fee structure for middlemen represent over half of all of the expenses his firm bears. Two, the "mutual funds are dinosaurs" mantra that caught on with the media, anxious for stories, and advisers anxious to "add value."
There are 656 ETFs that are three years old or less; dozens more were launched and liquidated or "repurposed" (the Drone ETF becoming the Cloud Economy ETF) in the same period. Of those 656, nearly 400 are no economically sustainable. That cutoff there, established by people who study ETF liquidations, is $30M AUM.
And whose funds are rolling in the cash? Looking just at these younger funds that have drawn $1B or more: JPMorgan, State Street, Vanguard, Deutsche, Franklin, BlackRock, Principal. Which is to say, old-line mutual fund companies. (As an aside, most also have a captive adviser workforce whose "recommended" list of ETFs are in-house products.)
Among the 25 largest newer ETFs, only two come from the upstart community: GraniteShares Gold (BAR) and GlobalX US Preferred (PFFD). Global X is owned by Mirae Asset, a Seoul-based firm that also owned Brown Brothers Harrison and the BBH Funds.
I don't know whether, a generation hence, PRWCX will be structured as an OEF under the '40 Act, an ETF under the Precidian Rule, both or neither. But I do know that the firms with the global reach, global recognition and multi-trillion asset bases that dominate the fund industry are more likely to cast the CNBC favorites of the world into deep shadow than vice versa.

Now they tell me!!!!
This summary prospectus change just came in my email. It is very specific for just a summary prospectus. More than I can ever recall. Seems more appropriate in a commentary or letter from the fund rather than a summary prospectus.
March 23, 2020
This information supplements certain disclosures contained in the Summary Prospectus of the
AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund, dated August 1, 2019, and the Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) for the Funds, each dated August 1, 2019, as
supplemented January 24, 2020.
____________________________________________________________________
AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund - Only
The paragraph under the section of the AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund’s
Summary Prospectus and Prospectus entitled “FUND SUMMARY - Principal Risks of
Investing in the Fund – Liquidity Risk” is replaced in its entirety with the following:
Liquidity Risk. Liquidity risk exists when particular investments of the Fund would be difficult
to purchase or sell, possibly preventing the Fund from selling such illiquid securities at an
advantageous time or price, or possibly requiring the Fund to dispose of other investments at
unfavorable times or prices in order to satisfy its obligations. The global impact of the coronavirus
on the economic and financial markets have caused severe market dislocations and liquidity
constraints in fixed income markets including many of the securities the Fund holds. To satisfy
shareholder redemptions, it is more likely the Fund will be required to dispose of portfolio
investments at unfavorable prices compared to their intrinsic value.
All Funds
The section of the Funds’ Prospectus entitled “ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT
THE FUNDS’ PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND RELATED RISKS -
Principal and Non-Principal Investment Risks – Market Risk” is replaced with the following:
Market Risk. Overall market risks may also affect the value of the Fund. Factors such as domestic
economic growth and market conditions, interest rate levels and political events affect the
securities markets. Local, regional or global events such as war, acts of terrorism, the spread of
infectious illnesses or other public health issues, recessions and depressions, or other events could
have a significant impact on the Fund and its investments and could result in increased premiums
or discounts to the Fund’s net asset value, and may impair market liquidity, thereby increasing
liquidity risk. The Fund could lose money over short periods due to short-term market movements
and over longer periods during more prolonged market downturns. During a general market
downturn, multiple asset classes may be negatively affected. Changes in market conditions and
interest rates can have the same impact on all types of securities and instruments. In times of severe
market disruptions you could lose your entire investment.
An outbreak of infectious respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus known as COVID-19
was first detected in China in December 2019 and has now been detected globally. This
coronavirus has resulted in travel restrictions, closed international borders, enhanced health
screenings at ports of entry and elsewhere, disruption of and delays in healthcare service
preparation and delivery, prolonged quarantines, cancellations, supply chain disruptions, and
lower consumer demand, as well as general concern and uncertainty. The impact of COVID-19,
and other infectious illness outbreaks that may arise in the future, could adversely affect the
economies of many nations or the entire global economy, individual issuers and capital markets in
ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen. In addition, the impact of infectious illnesses in emerging
market countries may be greater due to generally less established healthcare systems. Public health
crises caused by the COVID-19 outbreak may exacerbate other pre-existing political, social and
economic risks in certain countries or globally. The duration of the COVID-19 outbreak and its
effects cannot be determined with certainty.

With American Century launching Wall Street’s first two actively managed, nontransparent exchange-traded funds, some investors are wondering what the implications could be for competing actively managed mutual funds.
“There’s going to be a point where they become a level playing field, and ETFs, with their benefits, could outweigh those of mutual funds in the long term,” Rosenberg said.

https://cnbc.com/2020/04/09/mutual-funds-are-in-trouble-as-nontransparent-etfs-arrive-investor.html

This article paints a dark picture. It discusses what the author sees as being a very fragile global economy and a very uncertain path moving forward. Some of the concerns it expresses may help explain the Feds aggressive recent actions. Here are a few excerpts...

The latest U.S. data proves the world is in its steepest freefall ever—and the old economic and political playbooks don’t apply....There has never been a crash landing like this before. There is something new under the sun. And it is horrifying.
Thursday’s news confirms that the Western economies face a far deeper and more savage economic shock than they have ever previously experienced. The coronavirus lockdown directly affects services—retail, real estate, education, entertainment, restaurants—where 80 percent of Americans work today. Thus the result is immediate and catastrophic.
...this year, for the first time since reasonably reliable records of GDP began to be computed after World War II, the emerging market economies will contract. An entire model of global economic development has been brought skidding to a halt.
...we are witnessing the largest combined fiscal effort launched since World War II. Its effects will make themselves felt in weeks and months to come. It is already clear that the first round may not be enough.
We are engaged in the largest-ever surge in public debt in peacetime....Some have suggested it would be simpler for the central banks to cut out the business of buying debt issued by the government and instead simply to credit governments with a gigantic cash balance....And on 9 April that is exactly what the Bank of England announced it would be doing. For all intents and purposes, this means the central bank is simply printing money.
We now know what truly radical uncertainty looks like. A huge part of the world’s population has had the basic functioning of its life radically disrupted. None of us can confidently predict when we will be able to return to our pre-coronavirus lives.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/09/unemployment-coronavirus-pandemic-normal-economy-is-never-coming-back/
Here is an article that explains the Bank of England's recent actions:
https://theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/09/bank-of-england-to-finance-uk-government-covid-19-crisis-spending

I have reasonably positive views on Mr. Cinnamond. I made money on ARIVX; and , when he liquidated the fund because he couldn't find any small cap stocks worth buying, I decided that I would try to limit my new purchases until he reentered the game. I followed his Absolute Value blog and tried to keep my powder dry. When he and his associates started Palm Valley Capital, I bought the smallest position allowed through Vanguard, but their ER of 2% for a fund 90% in money markets wasn't encouraging. Since he had very few holdings, and sold some of them when they hit his targets, buying the funds' few holdings seemed a bit risky.
Admittedly, his fund is the only one of my holdings with a positive return so far this year (probably because he had mostly cash - but there were a few down days), and I do think this is his kind of market. While it might be difficult to buy his purchases in a timely fashion, this probably is a good entry point for the fund, if one can stand the ER. (I think I've convinced myself to buy some more, but I do hate the ER.)

FXAIX didn't perform better because it didn't have a lower ER all these years. The main difference between me and others is that I supply numbers and not just narrative;-)

It would be very time consuming to find ER for previous years but from memory, Fidelity lowered ER for their index funds years ago to compete with VG.
From M*, for 5 years average annual as of (04/08/2020) [...]
It's a surprise that VOO with lower ER had lower performance than VFIAX

VOO is a bit of a distraction, because it introduces an additional layer of differentiation (ETF share class vs. OEF share class) and because its ER was lower by just 1 basis point for one year. Amortized over five years that amounts to nothing more than a rounding error. Still, it's good to see an acknowledgement that an S&P 500 index fund with a lower stated ER can have lower returns.
That's important because it puts lie to the statement that "FXAIX didn't perform better because it didn't have a lower ER". Certainly ERs affect relative returns, but they're not dispositive, especially when the magnitude of a difference between funds is small.
"It would be very time consuming to find ER for previous years." So sometimes you don't "supply numbers". That's okay. But you presented a numeric claim, viz. that FXAIX had a higher ER all these years, without checking the numbers. That calls into question numbers posted without citations and links.
VFINX ER from current prospectus and from 1998 prospectus
2019: 0.14%
2018: 0.14%
2017: 0.14%
2016: 0.14%
2015: 0.16%
2014: 0.17%
1999-2013: between 0.17% and 0.19% (interpolation)
1998: 0.19%
1997: 0.19%
1996: 0.20%
1995: 0.20%
1994: 0.19%
1993: 0.19%
1992: 0.19%
1991: 0.20%
1990: 0.22%
1989: 0.21%
1998: 0.22%
FXAIX (and predecessor fund) ERs from:
current prospectus [On July 1, 2016, FMR reduced the management fee ... from 0.025% to 0.015%],
2011 prospectus [On February 1, 2011, FMR reduced the management fee ... from 0.07% to 0.025% ],
2005 prospectus [Fund shares purchased prior to October 1, 2005 and not subsequently converted to Fidelity Advantage Class are deemed Investor Class shares]
2004 prospectus [Effective April 18, 1997, FMR has voluntarily agreed to reimburse the fund to the extent that total operating expenses ... exceed 0.19%.]
1997 prospectus (showing actual expenses for 1988-1996)
2019:       0.015%
2018:       0.015% (per 2019 note)
2017:       0.015% (per 2019 note)
2016:       0.020% (per 2019 note and averaging over half year)
2015:       0.025% (per 2011 note)
2014:       0.025% (per 2011 note)
2013:       0.025% (per 2011 note)
2012:       0.025% (per 2011 note)
2011:       0.025%
2006-2010: 0.070% (per 2011 note and 2005 prospectus showing YE 0.07% ER)
2005:       0.090% (per 2005 note, weighted avg of share class ERs)
1998-2004: 0.190% (per 2004 note)
1997:       0.190%
1996:       0.280%
1995:       0.280%
1994:       0.280%
1993:       0.280%
1992:       0.280%
1991:       0.280%
1990:       0.280%
1989:       0.280%
1988:       0.280%

As of market close April 9th, according to the metrics of Old_Skeet's stock market barometer, the S&P 500 Index is now at fair value with a reading of 153. This is in the midpoint range of the barometer's scale. This past week, the short volume average increased, a good bit, from 55% to 68% of the total volume for SPY. It seems, the shorts are betting against this rally. The VIX (which is a measure of volatility) fell and went from a reading of 45 to 41. This is good. During the shortened week the stock Index's valuation gained ground moving from a reading of 2489 to 2790 for a gain of 12.1%; but has a decline of 17.6% off it's 52 week high. However, it up 21% off its 52 week closing low of 2305. I'm thinking that we have seen most of the nearterm gains stocks have to offer and we move mostly sideways (with some upside) but within a trading range form here through summer. Let's hope these gains stick and the shorts get squeezed. The three best performing sectors this week were real estate, materials, and, financials.
From a yield perspective, I'm finding that the US10YrT is now listed at 0.73% while at the beginning of the year it was listed at 1.92%. With the recent stock market swoon the S&P 500 Index is currently listed with a dividend yield of 2.14% while at the beginning of the year it was listed at 1.82%. As you can see there is a yield advantage for the stock Index over the US Ten Year Treasury. With this yield advantage, for stocks, during the month of March I favored my domestic equity income funds over my fixed income funds for new money; and, I expaned this sleeve from four to six funds. My domestic equity income sleeve gained +8.7% for the week while my global equity income sleeve gained 7.4%.
Since, I now have more than a full allocation to equities, at 48%, I've now started to buy on the income side of my portfolio. Since, cash will likely pay very little, in the form of yield, I have changed my asset allocation. My new asset allocation is 10% cash, 45% income and 45% equity. This is to take advange of the nearterm rebound that bonds are expected to receive now that the Fed's have begun to buy bonds and just within the past few days they started to purchase in the high yield sector. My fixed income sleeve gained +2.8% for the week while my hybrid income sleeve gained +6.3%. Plus, bonds will pay more in the form of yield over my money market funds which gained +0.01% for the week. This equates to about a one half of one percent yield which is hardley enough to cover purchase loss due to inflation.
My three best performing funds for the week were PMDAX +14.9% ... FRINX +12.8% ... and, LPEFX +11.7%.
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
Take care ... be safe ... and, I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet
Please note: The next barometer report will be made at the end of the month unless there is a barometer reading change from fair value.

I like Hulbert's researches usually (@LB, do you read?)
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-will-revisit-their-coronavirus-crash-low-and-heres-when-to-expect-it-2020-04-09

Here is a little more detail on the types of high yield bonds and about other financial products the Fed will now be buying:

In a move that surprised some investors, the central bank will also expand its bond-buying program to include debt that was investment-grade rated as of March 22 but was later downgraded to no lower than BB-, or three levels into high yield. It’ll also buy exchange-traded funds, the preponderance of which will track investment-grade debt along with some that track speculative-grade debt. Together, the programs will support as much as $850 billion in credit.
.....as well as fund the purchases of some types of......collateralized loan obligations and commercial mortgage-backed securities.

https://washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/fed-to-buy-junk-bonds-and-lend-to-states-in-fresh-virus-support/2020/04/09/1baf9420-7a60-11ea-a311-adb1344719a9_story.html

Hi guys, with the Fed's now having a green light to buy most capital type assets ... The stock market rally looks to continue. Now watch high yield ... Next stop stocks?

From what little I can find, it seems that FXAIX overall had the lower ER all these years. I look forward to seeing the ER numbers for "all these years".

It would be very time consuming to find ER for previous years but from memory, Fidelity lowered ER for their index funds years ago to compete with VG.
From M*, for 5 years average annual as of (04/08/2020)...FXAIX=7.9%...VFIAX=7.88...VOO=7.86
It's a surprise that VOO with lower ER had lower performance than VFIAX

Another maybe bullish sign... This article from the NYT says it's institutional investors (aka smart money) driving this one while Mom and Pop investors (like me) wait it out.

I have also read that some of the buying has been driven by funds with a mandate to own the constituents of various indexes.
OTOH. From your link:

Cole Smead, a portfolio manager at the Smead Value Fund, has been snapping up bargains in beaten-up parts of the market, like oil and energy producers, homebuilders and shopping-mall companies, that are closely tied to short-term swings in the economy.

I won't be adding Smead Value to my shopping list. I regularly drive by one of the largest ghost town malls in the country.

Goldman Sachs economists, for example, expect the gross domestic product to contract at an astounding 34 percent annual rate in the second quarter, with unemployment reaching roughly 15 percent.

I look at numbers like that on top of the burden of corporate leverage, and I wonder what could happen if their debt is down graded.

And don’t underestimate the fear of missing out. As shares rise, professional money managers feel pressure to buy stocks to protect their reputations.
“If you wait until the coast is clear, you will have missed a huge part of the gains,” said Matt Maley, chief market strategist at Miller Tabak, a trading and asset management firm. “And professional investors can’t afford to do that.”

That doesn't sound like the sort of discipline Old_Skeet describes as his process.
Thanks for the link.

In announcing what may prove its most groundbreaking step in the crisis fight, Fed chair Jerome Powell said the Fed’s role had now broadened beyond its usual focus in keeping markets “liquid” and functioning, to helping the United States get the economic and financial space it needs to fix a dire health emergency.

https://reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fed-mainstreet/fed-rolls-out-2-3-trillion-to-backstop-main-street-local-governments-during-crisis-idUSKCN21R1WY

The Federal Reserve said it would buy some junk bonds in a package of announcements that could pump $2.3 trillion into the economy

https://nytimes.com/2020/04/09/business/economy/fed-to-buy-municipal-some-riskier-debt-as-part-of-expansive-programs.html

Another maybe bullish sign... This article from the NYT says it's institutional investors (aka smart money) driving this one while Mom and Pop investors (like me) wait it out.

Concerns are being raised as QE Infinity begins to be implemented:

By pushing the Federal Reserve into corners of financial markets it has mostly shunned in its 106-year history, Chairman Jerome Powell is running into some thorny questions.
Like, for instance, how to maintain independence from the U.S. Treasury when the economic-support package Congress passed says they should work together? Or whether the same guidelines for companies receiving federal aid, which range from compensation limits to off-shoring restrictions, apply to the Fed if it gets more money from Treasury? And how about which companies -- and perhaps eventually, municipalities and states -- are invited to borrow and at what cost?
The Fed’s steps into credit allocation are tantamount to “a complete redesign of central banking on the fly.”
The CARES Act “forces the Fed into this almost intimate relationship with Treasury,” said Mark Spindel, co-author of a book about the relationship with Congress. “This is fiscal policy, picking winners and losers.”

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-09/powell-pushed-to-edge-of-fed-s-boundaries-in-fight-for-economy

Foomow up articles
Bonds funds with biggest net outflow ytd
https://www.financial-planning.com/list/coronavirus-lands-corporate-credit-atop-bond-fund-outflows-ranking-in-2020
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/etf-leaders/bond-funds-do-job-coronavirus-stock-market-crash/
With coronavirus uncertainties, corp bond etf has poorly performed in recent months. Many are heading toward exisiting doors/ running toward US-T.
The FEDS however recently backed these vehicles and bought huge junks/ corp bonds. Yields in junks much higher. Think investors maybe having second thoughts now before existing. 3rd/4th quarters may bring much better news and returns if economy recovery maybe taking shape

https://www.kitco.com/news/2020-04-07/Gold-is-undervalued-prices-to-hit-5-000-in-medium-term-says-economist.html
/Gold is cheap; prices to hit $5,000 in medium-term, says economist
Kitco News) - Gold prices could climb to $5,000 in a few years, this according to John Butler, author of "The Golden Revolution."/
Not sure if cheap or not in medium term, could be pure speculation. We are thinking increase our Commodities to ?! 4-5% in portfolio with GLD and VDE

It was a bad month. The pandemic's economic impact is reminiscent of the financial crisis, only transpiring much faster. The world was unprepared. Hearing about "CV-19" at first seemed remote and contained, like the term "sub-prime mortgages." Then, all at once, it was everywhere and raging.
Just posted Damage Report.

Yes Sirs!.. up +3s% today. hope finish strong/ or we may end up flat again like yesterday
Just wait until jobs reports/unemployment/earning outings next few weeks, we maybe having another 3-9% down days
In a blink of an eye, many will start writing next wk recession maybe ceasing and perhaps new bull market starting
'No One Wants to Call Canada’s 21% Stock Surge a Bull Market
S&P/TSX Composite has rallied at the fastest pace on record
Economic pain is just getting started as shutdowns take a toll
As quickly as the Canadian stock market fell into a bear market, it has even more rapidly surged 21% from its bottom. Yet, few are willing to call the rally by its technical definition -- a bull market.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-06/no-one-wants-to-call-canada-s-21-stock-surge-a-bull-market'
[same maybe said of Oil/EEM or US market]

Hi @MikeM
You noted:

I am eliminating bonds from my self managed portfolio as much as I can

Obviously, I don't know what type of bond funds you have already or will eliminate. I can only offer this, as we all "see" the markets from our own knowledge and perspective.
Note: The following view/comparison does not include either narrow focused or junk bond funds; with the exception being AAA narrow focused bond funds/etf's.
SO. I had 2 phone calls from friends, about a month ago, regarding their bond funds. They're both conservative investors and don't fiddle with their holdings often and hold about an even mix of equity (SP500 type) and bonds (active managed total return bond funds). They were concerned that their bond funds had become negative for returns. This was the short period when credit markets became stuck. As we know now and what could be assumed, is that the FED moved in to unwind the log jam.
The had fully expected that these would show positive returns when the equity market was crashing. Generally speaking, this would be normal expectation; except a short period in bondland was different. However, I did express that indeed their bond funds were supportive in their portfolio, although showing a small negative return at the time.
I provided the following information (now updated through April 7) using $SPX and FTBFX (a fairly typical total return bond fund).
The $SPX and FTBFX start at Jan. 2018, as this period found 4 periods of equity "fits"; being, Feb. 8, Mar. 21, Oct. 29 and the big melt of Dec. 24, 2018.
This is the total return data from Jan. 2018 through April 7, 2020 and two other periods:
--- Jan. 2018 - April 7, 2020
$SPX = - 1.4%
FTBX = + 9.9%
--- 1 year, April 7, 2019 - April 7, 2020
$SPX = - 8.1%
FTBFX = + 6.2%
--- March 19, 2020.....this date, being a period + or - a few days of when bonds, including AAA where behaving badly; and when I received the phone calls. The following is the YTD returns as of March 19.
$SPX = - 25.5%
FTBFX = - 5.4%
The conversation expressed that while the bonds were not + YTD; the bond fund did indeed function properly, in regards to the loss comparison with $SPX.
The above amounts to how one views an outcome and what are or were the reasons for arriving at a given monetary place.
As for today and with many U.S. bond areas; there is not likely a prior period or a future period when more support from the FED is taking place.
The support crutches, for many bond areas, are in place, IMHO.
Be well.
Catch