The fund is closing, not shutting down. Normally it's not surprising to see a fine performing small cap fund close. However, a fund with just $13M AUM (and a corresponding ER a bit south of 3%) would be more likely to shut down than to close.
Perhaps this is being done to give the new manager some breathing space?
The original manager (16 years) just left.

Effective as of May 1, 2020, Mr. Richard A. Barone will no longer serve as a portfolio manager of the Ancora Income Fund and Ancora Special Opportunity Fund. Accordingly, all references to Mr. Barone as portfolio manager in the Funds’ Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI are hereby removed.
Also effective as of May 1, 2020, Mr. James Bernard, CFA, and Kevin Gale will serve as the new co-portfolio managers of the Ancora Income Fund, and John Micklitsch will serve as the new portfolio manager for the Ancora Special Opportunity Fund.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1260667/000116204420000277/ancora497202005.htm
It is curious that this supplement, detailing a May 1 change in management, is dated May 7th. This might have been an unexpected change.

@Crash I've been using the same tax guy for 20 years even though I moved out of state in 2016.Apparently he prepares quite a few tax returns for St. Louisans who've moved out of state. The only hassles are Fedexing my info to him and the fact he only accepts cash or checks. I moved to Florida so he doesn't have to prepare a state tax return, but if I moved again I would feel fully comfortable with him preparing my state tax returns again.

@msf and @davidmoran You are confirming what my tax guy has told us. He is really, really good. But he's back in Massachusetts, still. We used him for 2019 tax return because we had partial-year MA and HI, both. Is there anything apart from what his personal preference might be that would keep us from continuing to use him? ..... BTW, 2020 ---- back in January, was the first time I took ANYTHING from the Trad. IRA. Ostensibly then, that legitimate portion of the distribution can be reported as non-taxable. He spelled it out for me a couple of times: the formula the IRS uses to "tease-out" the non-taxable portion from the rest of it, but it all just sounded ridiculously arcane, complicated and utterly convoluted to me. In other words: bullshit. There is exactly $5,000 of non-taxable money in that IRA, but somehow, it's not possible to just tell the IRS: "OK, I'm taking that $5,000.00 now. See you later." (If we COULD continue to use him, HE would be familiar with our circumstances and we could rely on him to let us know what the status is, in hard-dollar terms, from year to year. It would not take more than a few years, I suppose, to run through that $5,000.00).

If I understand you correctly, there were a couple of years in which you had compensation allowing you to contribute to an IRA. But on your tax form, after taking deductions, exemptions, etc., you had little or no taxable income left against which to deduct the IRA contributions.
This doesn't help you now, but at the time you discovered that a contribution was non-deductible you might have recharacterized the contribution as a Roth contribution. At least if this happened after 1996 (Roths started in 1997). That way, the earnings on these contributions would be tax-free.
Still, because you didn't deduct the contributions when you made them, the amounts you contributed (but not their earnings) will be tax-free when you withdraw them.

@davidmoran: I'm retired, wife works under the table, now. Gotta have earned income in order to make tax-deferred "contributions" to IRA. A couple of times, a few years ago, my contributions to Trad. IRA turned out to be unintended non-deductible----- because there was not enough income on the tax form to make those contributions "against." Thankfully, despite that fact, things look pretty rosy for myself and my wife, these days. :)

/'Fortunes are going to be made' -- Suze Orman on investing amid the coronavirus pandemic
BY SHAWN LANGLOIS | MARKETWATCH - 05/09/2020
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/3532E59E-8D6D-11EA-AD06-F36B40BB8290
'I can guarantee you that if you stay in and you just stick with it, three years from now you will be very, very happy that you did'
Celebrity financial adviser Suze Orman isn't for everybody. She once told MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/ story/suze-ormans-fire-storm-her-advice-for-millennials-retiring-early-is-simple-but-bleak-2019-06-24
that "there are people that hate my guts. You don't even want to know the things they say."
But there's no denying that her common sense brand of money management has resonated with her devoted fanbase over the years. Lately, with many in that fanbase struggling to navigate the coronavirus pandemic, she's been hitting the media circuit to address just some of the issues.
During a CNN segment that aired on Saturday, Orman was asked by a viewer how to approach investing in the stock market in the face of the historic volatility.
Here's her answer:
In other words, she's advising those without more-pressing obligations to take a specific sum of money and invest it every month into something like the Vanguard Total Market ETF(VTI) .
"If you do it month in and month out and you have at least three five or 10 years or longer until you need the money you will be happy," she continued. "If you need money within a year it's not money that belongs in the stock market. Take it out now."
Back in late February, when the Dow Jones Industrial Averagehad dropped more than 1,000 in a single session on fears of what the coronavirus could do to the U.S. economy, Orman raised a few eyebrows when she said "I rejoice" in the face of such pullbacks.
She used the opportunity to again push her case for dollar-cost averaging (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/suze- orman-says-investors-should-rejoice-at-the-dows-more-than-1000-point-tumble-heres-why-2020-02-24).
"The higher the market goes, the shares cost more, the less shares their money buys, the less money they make, in the long run," she told CNBC. "With this dip, if it continues to go down, they should just stay the course and actually be quite happy because the market is still incredibly high."
One month and a brutal stretch of market losses later, the New York Times best-selling author returned to CNBC (https: //www.cnbc.com/2020/03/26/coronavirus-suze-orman-says-no-better-time-to-start-investing.html) in late March to urge investors to stick with the plan.
"You will never, ever, know the bottom. You will never, ever, know the top," she said. "Fortunes are going to be made out of this time. So just stay calm. I can guarantee you that if you stay in and you just stick with it, three years from now you will be very, very happy that you did."
Here's Orman talking financial stability in a recent appearance on the Tamron Hall Show:
(https://www.youtube.com/embed/0Auos1d8c_8)
Orman, of course, is not alone in pushing the time-tested dollar-cost averaging approach.,/
Do you trust ms Orman?

So I had learned 15 years back. Converted $50K to $75K in 2 months and then turned $75K to $40K in about 8 days. Closed my account and ran. It was a mistake.

Happened to me when trading futures during my doctoral years. Made insane profits & hideous losses until I found what worked for me and my temperment, then I eeked out a slow steady profit for a while before quitting due to life changes. Now when I play (key word) with futures, which is rarely these days, it's in 1-2 lots only which is barely 1% of my trading account value - nothing extravagant.
What worked for me back then was, say if I lost 20K one day ... I would half my position sizing and not increase it back to normal trading lots until I had earned that money back. My thinking was that would reduce my risk and also force me to "be better" in my analysis and trading, even when it was "so clearly obvious" which way the market was going --- which if I acted on that impulse, I'd probably have been wrong. :) (I also considered this my penalty box.)

PS - There are too many people out there selling too many "strategies". Ignore. You need to know what your objective is. Speculating buying calls and puts? or earn income? mine is the latter. I might have said this before. 0.25% a week should be the target. 1% a month. 12% a year. Now lets say 0.10% a week, 0.4% a month, 4.8% a year. I'll still take it.

This. A well known options hedge fund blew up a few years ago because they were selling Very OTM naked puts on various commodities (similar to what VF is doing on the SPY but I'm sure he's more rational/careful) ... which is a strategy that worked in most market conditions, until it didn't, and their positions experienced a multi-sigma move against them overnight, and BAM! Out of business.
Anyone selling you the idea you can make 5-15% overnight, per week, or per month using options (or anything, really) is likely selling you reckless ideas packaged as snake oil. Only pikers will buy into that b/c they are enamored only by the potential gains, not how the trades are structured or what could happen if they lose. In this case, the only person making a profit is the newsletter/signal provider.

interesting article but I'm also looking for actions. Based on the info what an investor to do?
The % of SP500/QQQ revenues that are coming from abroad are 40/50% and why I only hold US LC for years now. If I want more risk/reward I would use QQQ instead of some of the SP500. The top QQQ companies rule the world and the beauty of the big high tech is the ability to acquire the next customer cheaply and depress their competition.

A very intriguing fund and seemingly well-allocated fund that I would consider adding to my portfolio -- though I have a hard time paying 1.07 a year for it when the performance (and some holdings) seems quite comparable to PRWCX, which I'm still quite happy with.

PRWCX is by far one of my favorite funds but VLAIX beats it from one month to 3 years and for 3 years is by 2% annually.
===========

BenWP:Seems to be a fine fund. I’m wondering why only one of the managers has any skin in the game? Kind of surprising on the face of it.

Nice to have but not necessary. Gundlach has a huge amount in DBLTX, I still don't own DBLTX for years, same with D&C shop...if I can find a better option.

I wasn't even invested 20 years ago. No money. But even with 58% bonds, 36% stocks, I'm down from my high-point by -7.5% tonight, including recent dividends. I'm not adding anything to the retirement portfolio. Minimal monthly additions into non-retirement account bond fund. So, not buying any more stocks, I am naturally more concerned about YIELD.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/12/investing/stock-market-dow-coronavirus-goldman-sachs/index.html
This is the most expensive time to buy stocks in 20 years
New York(CNN Business)The US stock market stands 4% higher today compared to a year ago, despite the death and destruction unleashed by the coronavirus pandemic.

So I had learned 15 years back. Converted $50K to $75K in 2 months and then turned $75K to $40K in about 8 days. Closed my account and ran. It was a mistake.
Since my daughter earned a scholarship to university, thought I would earn some income, so revisited some of my learning. Cash earning absolutely nothing.
Don't have to do anything drastic. Just sell a put. And sell it on SPY knowing it will not go to zero. Important to note, I shouldn't blab. I feel today might signal a downtrend. I was lucky to start after the sell off was mostly over and selling puts with markets going up is ideal. If you sell a PUT there is an obligation to purchase. So if you are assigned a share of SPY, you need to immediately sell a covered call. Or just simply sell and get out.
It's really not too hard. Just youtube for a basic options course. Will take 1 hour at most.
PS - There are too many people out there selling too many "strategies". Ignore. You need to know what your objective is. Speculating buying calls and puts? or earn income? mine is the latter. I might have said this before. 0.25% a week should be the target. 1% a month. 12% a year. Now lets say 0.10% a week, 0.4% a month, 4.8% a year. I'll still take it.

Prices were up in April because the fiscal and monetary support was huge and markets are looking ahead. We haven't seen anything like this in the last 50 years.
This is what I posted on ‎03-17-2020 11:38 PM (link)
7) For me and others who don’t mind to use possible better performing categories, select the ones with better momentum.
IDEA1: QQQ looks to me as a better choice than SP500 coming out of this meltdown because these giant high tech companies rule the world and the indexes and the strongest. QQQ also has a lower loss YTD then the SP500.
IDEA2: I am going to let the charts, trend, and prices tell me what is hot.

If I invest in HY it's only for trade. HY is a hybrid product that usually doesn't justify itself. Compare VWEHX(good HY) to VBIAX (60/40 indexes) (chart) and you will see VBIAX beat VWEHX for 1-3-5-10-15 years.
Most investors should not collect funds but use 3-7 funds and why HY doesn't have a place in my portfolio.
The only false justification is higher yield which I never like. The first thing you should look at investment is risk/reward and only then look for higher yield, that true with stocks and bonds.

@wxman123, The new baseline asset allocation can be found on The fund's Fact Sheet. As of 5-1-20 it is 50 percent. Under the old Fact Sheet it was 10 percent.
The 31 day trading rule is to prevent the fund from having wash sales. The fund's 31 day trading rule also prevents it from changing investment direction for 31 days from its last buy or sell transaction.

Maybe it's my reading skills...but as I read it the 31 day rule would not prevent the fund from increasing or decreasing stock allocation more frequently than 31 days. The rule only prevents an increase followed by a quick decrease, which would trigger a wash sale. An increase or decrease on two consecutive days would not have that effect. As the prospectus says: "The second exception is a “31-day Rule;” in order to reduce taxable events and minimize short-term trading if the S&P 500®Index price moves back and forth across a band in the allocation table, after the Fund has increased its percentage allocation to either stock funds or bond funds, it will not decrease that allocation for at least 31 days."
Also, according to the prospectus, the baseline increase is the current implementation of the strategy that has always been in place. Granted, the notion that the market has been "expensive" for the past 18 years (hence the former 10% stock baseline) and is now "normal" (50%) seems a bit disingenuous, but that's what the fund says. It also says that it can revisit this allocation more frequently then annually under unusual circumstances.

Here is a sample from one thread of the article:

For years, commentators of a conspiratorial lean have half-jokingly suggested that humanity is living in a simulation, à la The Matrix. When it comes to economic activity and markets, that is no longer an absurd suggestion.
...around three-quarters of those laid-off workers "receive benefits that exceed their former wage," Goldman says.
Goldman's projections actually call for a small increase in disposable personal income.

Again, we are living in a simulation.

But there is a problem related to living in a simulation:

The Treasury can make up for people’s lost wages, but people need the things wages buy. So replacing lost wages and revenues will not be enough for long: the economy has to produce goods and services.

Another thread of the article discussess Modern Monetary Theory and ties it into current Fed and Treasury activities. Here is a sample:

The US can always buy whatever there is to buy that's denominated in US dollars. It has no need to borrow dollars from anyone else because it is the issuer of those dollars. The US can spend too much, which risks stoking inflation, but the US does not, will not, and has never, needed to borrow dollars. Suggesting otherwise is to traffic in patent nonsense.
Why do governments sell bonds whenever they run deficits?...By selling bonds, they maintain the illusion of being financially constrained.

Here is the link to the article:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4345783-simulation-game

These articles hardly ever get the info you need/want. The most interesting are funds in the 3-6% yield where you find good risk/reward + yield.
Over the years I find myself using many times HY Munis + Multisector/NonTrad funds, especially securitized/MBS. Many of these got hit hard in 2008 and 2020 but they will be back.
FAGIX is an interesting fund I have watched over the years but not used. Did you know that FAGIX performed better than the SP500 for one year since the bottom on 3/6/2009?
In 2020, SPY is better since the bottom of 3/23.

Hi @Level5, For someone that has not followed the fund I can understand why one could become confused. It took me, years back, a while before I fully understood how the fund works. Know, I am not trying to change your thoughts on the fund ... Just, trying to help bring a better understanding on how it works from my past experiences.
Here is the link to the fund. https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/Columbia-Thermostat-Fund/Class-A/details/?cusip=197199755&_n=1
First, know that it has a 31 day trading rule and it can not change position direction once established until 31 days have expired.
Second, to see how the fund is positioned follow the link and open The Asset Allocation Update which will be a pfd. On this pfd you will find the last six asset allocation changes the fund made with the last one taking place on 4/28/2020 where it moved to a 35% stock / 65% bond allocation.
Third, once annually (May 1st) the fund managers set the trading ranges for the fund going forward for the coming year. With this, on May 1st of 2020 the fund made an asset allocation change from a baseline 10% equity allocation to a 50% baseline equity allocation before adjusting for the movement of the 500 Index. Since, the 31 day traiding rule is in effect the fund will not make the actual declared adjustment until the 31 days has expired from the date of the last asset allocation change. This will be done somewhere around May 29th.
For me it was a risk off ... risk on ... fund holding. Now with the baseline asset allocation change from a 10% baseline equity allocation to a 50% equity allocation it is no longer, from my perspective, a risk off ... risk on ... fund. With this, I have it under review, myself, to determine just how much of it I will continue to hold going forward.
I hope my above comment bring some clairty for a better understanding of how the fund positions.
Skeet

hmmmm. no thoughts. i already made all the money on pot stocks that i think i can and don't want to go back there. day trading on hot tips nearly killed me, though i did come out ahead by like 25k. too kooky. but that was a few years back and maybe things have settled down since then.
as re CTFAX (and RLSFX, for that matter) -- yup, 52 week highs. which makes me a FOMO investor of the most worstest kind. going to keep a short tether on both, however. or at least i hope to.

@Old_Joe
I agree completely. I think this is not going to be a "V" shaped recovery; It may not even be "U" shaped, but more "L" with a long tail.
All it will take to close movie theaters again is a couple of cases linked to a local theater. Same with restaurants, cruise lines fitness centers.. any business that depends on face to face public interactions etc.
Most REITS have reported collecting less than 70% of the rent owed them in April. How long before that number is lower?
If you can accept a 3 to 5 year stock market sag, I guess you are OK staying in the market, although it was down 80% in 1929- 1933 and did not fully recover until 1954, right?
People really need to consider why they are in the market. IF it is to fund a retirement 20 years away go for it. But if it is to get a dependable income stream for your current retirement I would be very very careful. I would much rather spend principal for a few months to live on than run the risk of a 25% decline
While I doubt the feds will help, maybe by mid to late summer if there is enough contact tracing and testing there will be the ability to identify cases quickly and keep the infection rate low. However, given the way the right wing is "weaponizing" Covid Politics, I think there are likely to be large areas of the country with significant disease for a long time
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/us/politics/coronavirus-death-toll-presidential-campaign.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage