Just posted all ratings and flows to MFO Premium site, using Refinitiv data drop from Friday, 25 October, reflecting risk and return metrics thru 3Q24, as applicable.
After updating the masternames file to reflect CPEFX as part of Cliffwater family, Ciffwater remains atop the MFO Family Scorecard for annual revenue per fund generated, out of about 900 hundred families.
Average revenue: $433M per year per fund.
Just three funds (thank you @stayCalm): Cliffwater Corporate Lending I (CCLFX), Cliffwater Enhanced Lending I (CELFX), Cliffwater Cascade Private Capital I (CPEFX).
CCLFX and CELFX are GOs. CPEFX likely will be when reaches 3-year mark.
Very high expense ratio: average ER 2.81%.
Family AUM of $28.2B.
Revenue per fund per year: $289M.
All CEFs.
All interval funds.
So far, it's delivered.

Anybody on the board know anything about the Advisor or strategies?
c

As a point, I own a few BDC's and have been quite happy with how they have performed for me so far. Never expected much in the way of capital gains but you need to be a buyer at the right time and market circumstances. I own them for the income - ARCC, BXSL, CSWC and HTGC. MAIN (don't own) is probably the most well known but it is currently selling at a hefty premium to it's NAV.

M* doesn't report a YTM for RPHIX (or for many other funds). Likewise, it doesn't report yields for many ETFs (e.g. VXUS).
The YTM field is not described in M*'s documentation for its fund portfolio page.
https://awgmain.morningstar.com/webhelp/glossary_definitions/indexes/mfportfolio.htm
However, elsewhere M* says that it gets this figure from the fund company; it does not calculate the number itself.
https://advisor.morningstar.com/Enterprise/VTC/FI_Survey_Guidelines_cashRevision_FINAL.PDF (2016)
https://advisor.morningstar.com/AWSOE/Training/WMCloud/FIEA/FIEAFAQ.pdf (2020)
While M* doesn't say when it omits SEC yields for funds, for ETFs it says that "When a dash appears, the yield available is more than 30 days old." (This is from mousing over the SEC yield field on any ETF Quote page.)

Nice find. It looks like you hit the sweet (or target) spot - high risk relative to ultra short bond funds (of which it is one based on duration), but low risk relative to short term bond funds.
A fund that's somewhat similar in performance and risk to WEFIX is FPNRX. FPA New Income focuses on preservation and then beating cash. I was happy to see it go no-load several years ago. More recently, it added this investor class so that it could be sold NTF. Unlike many NTF funds, New Income retail class adds only 10 basis points of expenses to its institutional class FPNIX. That may make it worth the cost if you buy frequently and/or in small amounts.
You'll find several funds with short durations and higher yields that invest primarily in ABSs. These look good on paper but come with risks that don't manifest too often. But sometimes they do. Check March 2020.
Almost everyone lost money then, but ABS funds tended to lose more. DHEAX is such a fund. Great three year volatility. Less great five year figure. Max drawdown (March-April 2020) was 9.74%. BBBMX was 4.07%, FPNRX was 4.24%, RPHIX was 1.09%. (All from M*)
It depends on what types of risks you're concerned with and how long you're willing to wait for recoveries.

Is selecting THOPX performance chasing and I am going against my original criteria-low risk?

I sold THOPX earlier in the month as the volatility began eating into my gains. At around the same time I sold WSHNX and WCPNX. But they were nice funds when rates were dropping. Pretty much depends on where you think rates are heading from here.
If you're interested in the David Sherman touch, I'ld look at his Crossing Bridge funds before RPHIX. I ended up buying CBLDX, and it has been touch and go. I Still have some cash that might go into CBUDX. Everything else went into VRIG, PULS, and USFR for the time being.
For my short-term bond fund watch list at M* I've added calendar years 2020 and 2022. These days I am ideally looking for positive returns for both years. I'm a nervous bond fund owner. :)

@MikeM - exactly what I was going to say! Along with FLRN there's also FLOT. They're not quite indistinguishable, but pretty close.
The knock against IG floating rate funds is that they don't do as well in falling interest rate environments. Or so I've read. And until this month (Oct) WCPNX was slightly outperforming them YTD, though not now.
A question is what you are looking for. RPHYX/RPHIX may be unique in how it invests. This results in after-expense returns that are extremely steady and IMHO worth the cost. Funds like FLRN and FLOT invest more traditionally and have slightly higher volatility and slightly lower returns. They are still well within the ultra-short duration and volatility ranges.
WCPNX is a traditional short term bond fund. As such, it can get jostled by market disruptions (see, e.g. 2022 and March 2020). The floating rate funds also got hit in March 2020, a market "blip" that affected pretty much everything. They held up nicely in 2022. Also, Schwab imposes a fee if you sell WCPNX within 90 days of purchase.
So WCPNX is a good fund if you're anticipating holding it for awhile (at least a year), but perhaps there are better choices if you are looking very short term.
Be advised that WCPNX changed name and strategy at the end of 2016. It had been Weitz Short-Intermediate Income Fund.
Portfolio Visualizer comparison - RPHIX (benchmark), WEFIX, FLRN, FLOT

For the past two months, I have been following two "Market Neutral" funds, QQMNX and VMNFX, which held up very well and provided some protection during recent market downturns. New managers have been at the helm of both funds since 2021.
As MikeM said: "I have to admit, QQMNX is a tempting alternative in this alternative field for a less bumpy ride and, so far, excellent returns."
..............QQMNX....VMNFX
YTD.........15.6%.......8.9%
3 YRS.......14.4........14.8
5 YRS.......10.3..........8.2
2022..........9.5.........13.5
Std. Dev....8.6%.......7.3%
As a retired investor who doesn't need a lot more money, preserving capital is more important to me than seeking sizeable returns on capital. While both funds have excellent risk/reward profiles, I have decided to add QQMNX to my portfolio at this time of fairly high equity valuations.

A couple other market neutral funds you can consider: BDMAX and JMNAX. BDMAX has outperformed QQMNX over the last 1 and 2 year trailing periods, and has a higher Sharpe ratio and lower standard deviation over the last 3 years according to Morningstar data. JMNAX has had lower returns, but has a smooth ride. I use a combination of BDMAX and JMNAX, but I might consider adding QQMNX. Thanks for bringing it up.

And thanks for bringing up BDMAX and JMNAX, much appreciated.
Unfortunately, BDMAX has a 5.25% load at my brokerage firm. But, another share class, BDMIX, may be available in an IRA with no minimum investment limit. Still checking it out.
However, JMNAX looks very promising and, as you said, it offers a "smooth ride" with a very low standard deviation of 4.35%. It's available NTF (No Transaction Fee) and offered load-waived.
I will continue to monitor both funds. I am currently fully invested, but some of my CDs are maturing early next year and will make some investable cash available.
Thanks again, Chinfist.

Latest MEMO from Howard Marks, Oaktree Capital, October 22, 2024
If you would rather LISTEN than read.

Gold ETFs will be under 28% capital gain tax for collectibles. Not so for gold-mining ETFs.

I owned GLD in the past and SGOL now, but do not remember how any gains were characterized by Schwab. I am not sure Schwab has a separate "28%" capital gain section

@Derf - Good question. I was aware collectibles like rare coins and precious metals are subject to a higher (28%) tax. I hadn’t considered what happens when those assets appreciate within a fund. So I did a quick read.
Relevant excerpt #1: The final category of capital gains is collectibles. Collectible gains, the focus of this article, are subject to a maximum rate of 28%.
Relevant excerpt #2: Sec. 408(m)(2) defines a collectible as:
Any work of art;
Any rug or antique;
Any metal or gem;
Any stamp or coin;
Any alcoholic beverage; or
Any other tangible personal property specified by Treasury.
Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.408-10(b)5 expands the Sec. 408(m)(2) definition of a collectible to also include:
Any musical instrument; and
Any historical objects (documents, clothes, etc.).6
Relevant Excerpt #3: While it is clear that gold and silver coins are collectibles, what about bullion-backed precious metal exchange-traded funds (precious metal ETFs)? Are they also considered collectibles? Because precious metal ETFs (e.g., gold, silver, platinum, and palladium) are physically backed by precious metals such that each precious metal ETF share represents ownership in the underlying precious metal, precious metal ETF shares are considered to be collectibles. Examples of common gold ETFs include SPDR Gold Shares (GLD), iShares Gold Trust (IAU), and ETFS Physical Swiss Gold Shares (SGOL).
In brief, the article appears to say that yes, if held inside an etf (gains on) collectibles / precious metals would be taxed at 28%. There is a direct proportional relationship between a share of an etf and an underlying asset.
But PRPFX is a mutual fund (OEF) and that direct proportional relationship between fund shares and underlying assets does not exist. So shares of PRPFX should not be subject to any of the 28% tax on collectibles / precious metals. Of course, if held inside an IRA it shouldn’t make any difference anyway. In that case, a gold backed etf would not be taxed any differently.
Warning: I am not a competent tax advisor. Be sure to consult one when doing your taxes.

https://bilello.blog/2024/the-state-of-the-markets-october-2024
"High Yield Spreads are now at their tightest levels since June 2007 (2.89%) and Investment Grade Spreads at their tightest levels since March 2005 (0.83%). Bond investors are reaching for yield and behaving as if there will never be a default cycle again."
"Rents have been held down by a multi-family construction boom that significantly increased supply and is leading to the highest vacancy rates (6.7%) since 2020."
"And wage growth of close to 4% over the past year was 1.5% higher than the increase in CPI inflation. That was the 17th straight month in which wages outpaced inflation over the prior year, a great trend for the American worker that hopefully continues."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1396092/000199937124013654/clifford-497_102124.htm
497 1 clifford-497_102124.htm SUPPLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 21, 2024
Clifford Capital Focused Small Cap Value Fund
Investor Class (FSVRX)
Institutional Class (FSVVX)
Super Institutional Class (FSVQX)
Supplement dated October 21, 2024
to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information,
each dated January 31, 2024
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of World Funds Trust (the “Trust”) has approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) for the Clifford Capital Focused Small Value Fund (the “Fund”), which became effective on October 21, 2024. Clifford Capital Partners LLC (the “Adviser”) recommended that the Board approve the Plan due to a diminished asset base and correspondingly rising expenses of the Fund, which the Adviser has indicated that it is no longer willing to continue to subsidize. As a result, the Board concluded that it is in the best interest of the Fund’s shareholders to liquidate the Fund. The Fund is expected to liquidate on or about November 20, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”).
Effective October 21, 2024, the Fund was closed to new and subsequent investments. Until the Liquidation Date, Fund shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and distributions in the Fund or redeem their shares. Any remaining shareholders on the Liquidation Date will receive a distribution of their remaining investment value in the Fund based on the instructions listed on your account. The sale or liquidation of your shares will generally be a taxable event. You should consult your tax advisor about your tax situation.
As shareholders redeem shares of the Fund between October 21, 2024 and the Liquidation Date, the Fund may not be able to maintain its stated investment goal and other investment policies. Accordingly, the Fund may deviate from its stated investment goal and other investment policies during the period between October 21, 2024 and the Liquidation Date.
If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund toll-free at 1-800-673-0550.
This Supplement, the Fund’s Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. The Fund’s Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference, and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-800-673-0550.

One of the stunning numbers in the Score Card is the FirstHand fund family. Its three funds have an average ER of -1.12.
The culprit is a CEF Firsthand Technology Value Fund SVVC with an ER of -7.21.
I checked with Lipper and their folks say it's correct, referencing this 10K filing.
To my knowledge, the fund appears to have lost nearly all its AUM since launching in 2011.
Still can't quite get my head around this.
Here's an excerpt:

NOTE 4. INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT FEE
The Company has entered into an investment management agreement (the “Investment Management Agreement”) with FCM pursuant to which the Company will pay FCM a fee for providing investment management services consisting of two components—a base management fee and an incentive fee.
The base management fee will be calculated at an annual rate of 2.00% of our gross assets. For services rendered under the Investment Management Agreement, the base management fee will be payable quarterly in arrears. The base management fee will be calculated based on the average of (1) the value of our gross assets at the end of the current calendar quarter and (2) the value of the Company’s gross assets at the end of the preceding calendar quarter; and will be appropriately adjusted for any share issuances or repurchases during the current calendar quarter. Base management fees for any partial month or quarter will be pro-rated.
The incentive fee is determined and payable in arrears as of the end of each calendar year (or upon termination of the Investment Management Agreement, as of the termination date), commencing on April 15, 2011, and equals 20% of the Company’s realized capital gains, if any, on a cumulative basis from inception through the end of each calendar year, computed net of all realized capital losses and unrealized capital depreciation on a cumulative basis, less the aggregate amount of any previously paid incentive fees, provided that the incentive fee determined as of December 31, 2023, will be calculated for a period of shorter than twelve calendar months to take into account any realized gains computed net of all realized capital losses and unrealized capital depreciation from inception. For the year ended December 31, 2023, there were no Incentive fee adjustments. For the year ended December 31, 2022, there were no incentive fee adjustments. For the year ended December 31, 2021, there were no incentive fee adjustments.
Effective September 30, 2023, the Company has entered into a fee waiver agreement with FCM (the “Fee Waiver Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Fee Waiver Agreement, FCM agrees to (1) waive future accruals of the base management fee starting October 1, 2023, through December 31, 2024, with future recoupment to the extent permitted by the Investment Management Agreement, and (2) waive $2.5 million of base management fee that has been accrued but unpaid prior to but unpaid as of September 30, 2023. Any accrued base management fee waived under section (2) may be recouped by FCM within ten years.

Hi @BaluBalu
A potential report 'end date' will always be an open consideration.
As to TMF and EDV; well, we're seldom sure of what the 'pro' traders are attempting to do, eh? We've had about 2% of our portfolio in TMF for a few years, awaiting yield changes that would promote a decent price gain. TMF has travelled a rough chart during this period; as does its alter ego of TBT (the short position). These have always been 'hot potatoes'; but while we await pricing gains, we do have a tiny offset of a 3.33% yield. Generally, we do not enter an investment with only a 2% position, as this is not meaningful to any real support for an overall portfolio; but we took a fling and will patiently wait.
The recent good economic news and ongoing rising inflation potentials, as well as the looming election results are likely placing more pressure on the long duration bonds. Only my 'best guess'.

I'm totally ignorant about what you are trying to do with these moves. What do you aim for that couldn't be hit with some other type of investment?

Hi @BaluBalu
A potential report 'end date' will always be an open consideration.
As to TMF and EDV; well, we're seldom sure of what the 'pro' traders are attempting to do, eh? We've had about 2% of our portfolio in TMF for a few years, awaiting yield changes that would promote a decent price gain. TMF has travelled a rough chart during this period; as does its alter ego of TBT (the short position). These have always been 'hot potatoes'; but while we await pricing gains, we do have a tiny offset of a 3.33% yield. Generally, we do not enter an investment with only a 2% position, as this is not meaningful to any real support for an overall portfolio; but we took a fling and will patiently wait.
The recent good economic news and ongoing rising inflation potentials, as well as the looming election results are likely placing more pressure on the long duration bonds. Only my 'best guess'.

Yes, I think so also. But then, I'm not sure that it could get much worse. Actually, for a long-term capital gains situation buying/holding BA right now could be a real good move if you can hold on long enough. I'm too old for such things.
:(

They recently announced 10% layoffs across the board. So, there should be enough productivity gains.
Or they may simply be producing 10% fewer planes.

As a shareholder, I am fine with the wage increases. Co initial offer was 30%. They recently announced 10% layoffs across the board. So, there should be enough productivity gains. I am happy they will be back to work soon.
I just need the execs to get back to fixing the culture.
Side bar, There is a possibility, it is going to be M Bowman and not Powell’s world. In any case, Powell term ends in a year or so.

There is always makers and takers in personal life and at society level. Many of those guys / States making noise about the huge deficits, immigrants, etc. are not necessarily worried about the future of the country (they already think they are a different country) but worried about their freebies decreasing / stopping - it is about keeping their gravy train secure.
It is easier to work / help with / cure capabilities but you can not cure a sense of entitlement.
For the fiscal year ended Sept 30, federal Govt ran a deficit of $1.98T ($900B of which was net interest expense). The deficit was the third largest after 2020 and 2021.
We need to get the deficits (in excess of inflation) under control.