RSIVX WBMAX ARIVX PRPFX AQRNX MFLDX WAFMX SFGIX I just hope GPMCX is not the next.

;-)

RSIVX WBMAX ARIVX PRPFX AQRNX MFLDX WAFMX SFGIX I just hope GPMCX is not the next.

Consistent with capital preservation is a phrase in lot of equity fund prospectuses too. Now I am ass dissapointed with rsivx as anyone, but let's not quote this and perpetuate the notion rsivx is a cash substitute.

Per Morningstar -- rphyx 43.57 % -- rsivx 18.22 %
ps- rsivx 12 MO. LOSS =4.91%

There are both similarities and differences of faults with hedge funds and open end funds. In one sense, you're right about people tending to pile into some funds based on manager past performance.
People piled into Gundlach's funds, even though they use "exotic financial derivatives like total return swaps". (See below.) IMHO use of exotic derivatives has become more commonplace - they're not limited to hedge funds and a few offbeat mutual funds as the article suggested. Though they're still insignificant if not absent from vanilla funds.
People piled into DoubleLine, into Yacktman, and others based on the managers' long term past performance at substantially identical funds. Not on a short term (3 year) record at a fund that was substantially different. RSIVX by design holds longer term, often illiquid bonds, than RPHYX, as opposed short term bonds ("think 30-90 day maturity").
So ISTM there is a qualitative difference between piling into funds like RSIVX (unproven management for that type of fund) or TFCIX or WBMAX (both with untested strategies for open end funds), and piling into proven management and strategies in the hedge fund arena. Another example of a mismatch between strategies and open end funds - stable value funds. There were (as I recall) over a dozen open end stable value funds attempted. They couldn't handle the open end fund daily redemption requirement.
YACKX also floundered for its first couple of years. It was only in 1994, in a relatively flat market, that it began to shine. Yet people stuck with him. Quoting Yacktman: "My only real fear in 1993 was that people who put their money in during 1992 would take it out at a loss. I didn't want this to happen, because I knew my performance would come back. ... As it turned out, more money came in than went out."
With hedge funds, accredited investors have the responsibility (and supposedly the opportunity) of investigating the offering. These "sophisticated" investors don't get the same disclosures as are required of open end funds. If managers have buried past failures, it's up to the investors to discover that.
The mandated disclosures of open end funds are supposed to make it easier for the other 99%. It is their choice to accept or reject a disclosure that discloses little other than: "just trust us".
DoubleLine funds and total return swaps:
Reuters, Nov 16, 2015: RiverNorth/DoubleLine Strategic Income Fund possesses economic exposure to an aggregate of 1,103,373 shares of Common Stock [of FSC] due to certain cash-settled total return swap agreements."

ThinkAdvisor, Nov 22, 2013“It’s [DSEEX] put together using a total-return swap,” Gundlach said of the fixed-income side of the fund.
Probably other funds; this was a quick search.

There are a lot of things wrong in the hedge fund world but ...
Couldn't you write a similar article on the active mutual fund industry based on the failure of the Third Avenue Junk bond fund citing how the average active mutual fund (over the entire universe) fails to beat an arbitrary index? Qualitatively, it would be the same level of insight into that universe.
"Star" hedge fund managers based on past history attract money and fail when markets don't co-operate for the bets they make. How is this qualitatively different than people piling on to new and unproven mutual funds like RSIVX based on the manager reputation that could go anywhere and yet went nowhere but down?
Hedge fund managers, VC fund managers, private equity managers, active fund managers all have a good thing going for them in managing other people's money with a lot of upside and no downside.
It does feel good to knock down the 1% in a populist way but in the case of Whitebox it isn't the 1% that got hurt.

Replaced RSIVX with PONDX last summer as my goal in FI investment is total return and not income.

Sold it the first trading day of the new year. Replaced RSIVX with two closed-end funds: DSL and BGH.

I unloaded RSIVX during tax-loss harvesting and bought a lesser amount of PTIAX. Still have RPHYX, but not as much as I once did.

I will keep an eye on PTIAX and NEARX. I currently own OSTIX in my Roth IRA as well as RSIVX. I would love to buy RPHYX, but it looks like it will be closed for the next 100 years...

@3yards nope, got out of it early in 2015. I have a toehold in RPHYX. PTIAX (mentioned here by someone) seems to be much steadier...that's where I've put my cash after selling all of RSIVX.

I was wondering if you still own RSIVX and what percentage of your portfolio is invested in it. Also what are your thoughts of RSIVX going forward? Thanks!

Amen to that! Unless you want to eat, drink, sleep, and breathe the markets 24 hours a day. And I mean that literally. Over the years have seen all these investors congregate in the same funds such as the aforementioned Whitebox as well as other *crowd* favorites ala RSIVX, ARIVX, MFLDX, WAFMX, RPHYX, AQRNX, and the granddaddy of them all PRPFX. Not exactly a prescription for a wealthy retirement. I just hope it won't be the same sad story with the latest fave GPMCX.

Actually in that collection I don't think MFLDX and certainly AQRNX don't belong. One did a shareholder unfriendly thing, and one is shareholder unfriendly period.
RSIVX, I think people are bashing out of proportion. No one said it did not have any risks. People expecting RPHYX out of RSIVX without reading prospectus going to be dissapointed.
Still a believer in ARIVX. Never owned WAFMX and GPMCX
Now two funds I own and who belong are FVALX and INTLX. Luckily for me have held them forever and will continue to hold "forever". With FVALX manager didn't time the S&P 500 puts correctly or it would be breaking even. Hard to be Value Fund and time the short incorrectly. I'm in for the long haul in these two.
The one dissapointment for me has been ICMBX. Expected it to have held up much better.
Finally, got lucky with WBLSX to OTCRX switch at Vanguard. I feel for WBMAX investors.

@VF - I know you saw it coming, sorry to offend. I asked Charles because I thought he was one of the believers.
I have to wonder though if Mr. Buffett has been right all along. Just stick your money in an S&P 500 index and go live your life. If the smart people in the room with all the toys and tools can't get this stuff right who do I think I'm fooling. Some pondering I must do.

Amen to that! Unless you want to eat, drink, sleep, and breathe the markets 24 hours a day. And I mean that literally. Over the years have seen all these investors congregate in the same funds such as the aforementioned Whitebox as well as other *crowd* favorites ala RSIVX, ARIVX, MFLDX, WAFMX, RPHYX, AQRNX, and the granddaddy of them all PRPFX. Not exactly a prescription for a wealthy retirement. I just hope it won't be the same sad story with the latest fave GPMCX.

Hi VF- Yes, I also have a very small position in RSIVX. I'm thinking of converting that to ARTFX and then perhaps taking a part of the RPHYX and gradually switching that over. I agree with you on the risk profiles- I wouldn't switch the entire RPHYX- just part of it. Thanks again for your suggestions on this.

OJ, I can understand RSIVX into ARTFX. RPHYX I feel still has a lower risk profile than the other two. But WTF do I know, I own all 3 right now.

Mona: "I am still trying to understand why all the ink on MFO on RSIVX and not a drop on ASHIX ...."
Hi Mona, the Allianz fund is mentioned in this thread, and a few others. Search on ASHDX to find them, as that seems to be the share class people have referred to. Funny, the ASHDX share class doesn't trigger as a valid ticker now; it used to.
The big difference is that Allianz is into higher quality junk.
Cheers, AJ
Edit: Huh. ASHDX doesn't trigger because, apparently, the D share class doesn't exist anymore - at least neither M* nor Fidelity recognizes it now. There's an A share class that Fido offers load-waived - ASHAX.

Hi AndyJ,
No wonder I could not find a peep!
Now that you have, I agree with your post on October 19th where your said:
"Riverpark hasn't kept up with its real peers, e.g., ASHDX & OSTIX."
And, I am also in agreement with the post by willmatt72 on October 20th:
"As Heezsafe alluded to, RSIVX is not really a total return fund. I held this fund for about a year and, while it distributed a nice dividend, it never held its NAV during that time. As a result, I continued to watch my principal drop. It wasn't my cup of tea. I chalk it up to lessons learned. I've had better results with ASHDX and ZEOIX."
Personally I am glad to be long out of RSIVX and in ASHIX albiet it's has a bit of a rough past month.
Mona

Mona: "I am still trying to understand why all the ink on MFO on RSIVX and not a drop on ASHIX ...."
Hi Mona, the Allianz fund is mentioned in this thread, and a few others. Search on ASHDX to find them, as that seems to be the share class people have referred to. Funny, the ASHDX share class doesn't trigger as a valid ticker now; it used to.
The big difference is that Allianz is into higher quality junk.
Cheers, AJ
Edit: Huh. ASHDX doesn't trigger because, apparently, the D share class doesn't exist anymore - at least neither M* nor Fidelity recognizes it now. There's an A share class that Fido offers load-waived - ASHAX.

Higher potential return almost always translates into higher risk. That's what you're being compensated for.
Of course, water has been known to run uphill.
Nice to see you posting again Mona.

Yup, "almost always".
However, I am still trying to understand why all the ink on MFO on RSIVX and not a drop on ASHIX, especially if the water is running uphill.
Mona

The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon published way back in 1895 yet as topical as ever. I really think RPHYX isn't all that bad albeit not my cup of tea. RSIVX I said before is a mediocre fund (actually less than mediocre now) and heavens forbid if Jim Rogers and Carl Icahn are correct in their assessment that something real ugly is brewing in corporate junk debt. As an aside, PONDX which has been mentioned favorably on MFO numerous times, just doesn't seem to get the love that undeserving RSIVX does. PONDX, swelled assets and all just keeps truckin on.
Nice post Junkster. And why all the ink on RSVIX and none on ASHIX that I can recall?
Mona