The Leland Reuters Family consists of three funds: Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund, Thomson Reuters Private Equity Buyout Index Fund, and Real Asset Opportunities Fund.
We’ll focus on the first of these.
Objective and Strategy
It’s complicated.
First, the TR Venture Capital Research Index looks at 22,000 U.S. firms and all of the VC/PE deals that occurred over the previous quarter, analyzes them, and places them in the seven sectors that comprise the index to see how these companies are performing and estimates their value using data stemming from IPOs, stock buybacks, and surveys.
Then, the TR Venture Capital Index (TR VC Index) seeks to replicate that risk/ return profile of the TR VC Research Index by using the same process to identify a set of publicly listed assets that when properly weighted replicate the returns of the TR VC Research Index.
Rather than investing in venture capital/private equity companies directly, the TR VC Index seeks to replicate the industry’s returns by constructing a portfolio of liquid, U.S. large cap, listed equities, (e.g., Apple, Dow Chemical, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.).
This portfolio is designed to mirror the characteristics and returns of the VC/PE markets, which is tracked and calculated by Refinitiv in the Venture Capital Research Index.

Additionally, it uses economic factors and market indicators to calculate optimal asset weights and modifies the portfolio over time to reflect changes in the venture capital universe. Small leverage is commonly used so that the tracking portfolio’s risk loadings match those of the VC/PE industry in aggregate.
The Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund acquired all of the assets and liabilities of the MPS Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Fund (the "Predecessor Fund") in a tax-free reorganization on September 24, 2015. (SAI)
Adviser: Good Harbor® Financial, LLC develops and manages a comprehensive suite of investment solutions designed to fit into a wide range of portfolios for institutions, private investors and their financial advisors. Based in Chicago, the firm provides actively managed access to a broad range of global capital markets.
Managers
Neil R. Peplinski, CFA. Managing Partner, Good Harbor Financial LLC, worked as a portfolio manager for Allstate Investments overseeing a $400 million portfolio of collateralized debt obligations. Neil earned his MBA with High Honors from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He also holds a MSEE in Electromagnetics from The University of Michigan, and a BSEE in Electromagnetics from Michigan Technological University where he graduated summa cum laude.
David Armstrong, portfolio manager. He is primarily responsible for working with advisory firms and investors to understand tactical asset allocation as they assess Good Harbor and its investment strategies. With 28 years of professional experience, David’s previous companies include Honeywell, RR Donnelley and Oracle. Prior to joining Good Harbor, he was a director of research conducting analysis on the nature and structure of competition in the credit card market for financial firms. David earned his MBA from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a BA from Knox College.
Yash Patel, CFA, Chief Operating Officer, has served as a Portfolio Manager since March 2010 at Good Harbor Financial and also serves as its Chief Operating Officer. Yash brings 14 years of professional experience to the firm. His responsibilities include the management and leadership of operations, technology, trading, and portfolio management. Prior to joining Good Harbor Financial, Yash was a quantitative equity analyst for Allstate Investments, developing and implementing model-driven trading strategies. Previous to that, he worked and consulted for hedge funds including Bridgewater Associates and Citadel Investment Group. Yash earned an MBA with Honors from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a BS CSE from The Ohio State University.
Managements stake in the fund
As of 9/30/18 (the latest available), Mr. Peplinski owns between $100,001-500,000 amount of the VC fund; Mr. Armstrong $10,001-50,000; Mr. Patel $1,000-10,000.
None of the five trustees own shares of the fund.
Opening dates
LDVIX 10/2/2014; LDVAX Class A 10/2/2014; LDVAX w/load 10/2/2014; LDVCX 9/23/2015
Expense ratios LDVIX 1.51; LDVCX 2.51; LDVAX 1.76
Minimum investment
LDVIX $250K Regular, IRA; LDVCX Regular $2,500, IRA $1,000; LDVAX Regular $2,500, IRA $1,000
The funds have limited brokerage availability. All are NTF at TD; Fidelity LDVAX TF;
Schwab LDVIX Institutional Class $100K Regular, IRA; LDVAX $100, Regular, IRA
Other Facts
As of 12/31/19, the AUM of the Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund was $122,987,322. According to M*, the fund currently has $141.7M in assets.
The firm reports turnover for the Leland Funds on a fiscal year basis (9/30). For FY ending 9/30/2019, the turnover for the Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund was 115%. It was 47% in 2018 (9/30).
The prospectus states that typically the TO is over 100%.
AUM at the firm on 9/30/19 was $280.4M EOY, a decline from $440M from the previous EOY.
The overall AUM decline is mostly due to outflows in their Good Harbor Tactical Core US strategy (both in the mutual fund version and SMA). There have also been outflows in the Leland Real Asset Opportunities Fund as well.
Here is the link of the fund’s holdings that seek to track the Index.
http://www.lelandfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_12_Leland-TR-VC-Index-Fund-Holdings.pdf
Performance information of the Index:
https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/fact-sheets/venture-capital-index-fact-sheet.pdf
Comments
The gentleman who asked about the fund mentioned the three-year performance of LDVAX, a 5.75% load fund.
I’ve chosen to cite the I class LDVIX and C class LVDCX and the Primecap POAGX, the aggressive mid-cap fund with a stellar record since its inception in 1984 and currently closed with $6B in assets. Like the Leland funds, POAGX is concentrated in tech and healthcare.
Also, he also owned POAGX but sold it in 12/2018.
How have these funds performed?
As of 1/16/20, the dollar value of LDVIX is $24,670, LDVCX $23,979, and POAGX $15,709 at M*.
As of 1/16/20, LDVIX has gained 9.56%, LDVCX 9.57%, and LDVAX 9.59%. All have 5* ratings for overall performance at M*.
While these funds have some significant headwinds, their performance to date has managed to overcome them. Additionally, if one looks at MFOP for the three-year metrics that the gentleman cited ending 12/31/19, you'll see this:
LDVIX MAXDD 12/18 -23.1; Recovery Rtg. 1 (Best) 7 mo.; Sharpe Ratio 1.38 5 (Best); Martin Ratio 5.13; Ulcer Index 6.3
LDVCX MAXDD 12/18 -22.3; RR 1 (Best) 7 mo., SR 1.33 1.33 (Best); MR 4.85; UI 6.4
POAGX MAXDD 12/18 -22.3; RR 5 (Worst) 16+ mo.; SR 0.73 (Worst 1); MR 1.69; UI 8.1
The overall success of these funds may result primarily from the ability of the managers in the alternative class space to match the performance of their bogy with well-chosen public companies.
I do not own this fund and won't be buying it.
I researched this fund because a board member asked for information about it, I had already been researching it at MFOP, and because he had received no replies, I wanted to
contact him.
I’d like to thank everyone who participated in the search for this gentleman and hope that what I have written may be of some value.

First, unless all your assets are tax-sheltered, you do have assets in taxable accounts. The question is not whether you invest taxable assets, but where. Unless of course you're keeping them all in cash, which some people would still regard as a form of investment.
Certainly you don't have to invest any of your taxable assets in equities. You could always put all your taxable moneys into bonds and keep your equity investments tax sheltered. If that's what you're doing, more power to you. Several years ago T. Rowe Price had a study that showed, under certain (now obsolete) tax rate and return rate assumptions, that was actually a better strategy.
So you're right, you don't have to invest any taxable money in equities. But if you do because of tax benefits, those benefits are even greater with foreign investments.
Second, you stated that "I never used [D&C] funds because I found better choices." You positioned that as a personal decision. So it's not so much a matter of what "most households filing jointly" pay in taxes as what you pay.
Speaking generally, even if other funds are better for you, it doesn't mean that they're better for others. I suspect that people here tend to have above average size portfolios. So it isn't obvious that you're even addressing most of the readers. I don't know one way or the other.
Third, "The saying is true: You really can't eat risk-adjusted returns."
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/873910/you-cant-eat-risk-adjusted-returns-but-they-still-might-nourish
Not that I always discount volatility (which is not the same as risk, despite the oh-so-mathematical formulae suggesting otherwise). Rather, I personally care about it primarily where cash flow is important. Thus I pay attention when David Snowball points out that RPHIX has the highest Sharpe ratio of any fund. But I certainly wouldn't use that fund for a long term investment merely because of its wonderful Sharpe ratio.
For a long term equity investment, I care about long term returns. As Jeffrey Ptak documented in the cited M* column, most people don't invest that way. "It appears that higher risk-adjusted performers are easier for investors to use", despite their potentially lower returns.

DODFX vs HFQTX depends on whether you're investing in a tax-sheltered account (where you're losing the benefit of the foreign tax credit) or in a taxable account.
In a taxable account, one pays a cost for the Janus fund's frenetic trading (142% turnover ratio).
Comparing the tax adjusted returns for HFQIX (a lower cost, longer lifetime share class) with DODFX:

       DODFX    HFQIX
1 yr   21.06%   18.12%
3 yr    6.76%    4.11%
5 yr    2.88%    2.63%
10 yr   4.95%    4.46%

All figures as of 12/31/19
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=DODFX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=HFQIX

First, I don't have to invest in a taxable account. Most investors have much more money in their IRA.
Second and important, M* numbers are way off. It depends on one's tax brackets and most household filing jointly have a max rate of 22% ($168.4K)
Third, A 5 years analysis(link) shows that DODFX has over 40% more volatility while performance is equal to 3.7% while HFQIX peformance is equal to 5.1% with much lower volatility. Another great way is to look at Sharpe+Sortino and HFQIX numbers are much better.

WABAC: "The useful features at M* are free. I have found the data here worth paying for.
And you can create portfolios and watch lists here that are useful compliments to the ones at M*. The risk information that is easily filtered on, and displayed, here goes well beyond that which is available at M*. OTOH this site does not track daily share movements, so doesn't display what percentage of your portfolio an asset is. You have to set your portfolio according to the target percentage. Portfolios are also limited to 25 tickers. That worked well enough for my wife's IRA, but not at all for a collector like me."
There are so many websites, that offer an array of valuable information. I use to run portfolios, with varied portfolio details, at M*, CNBC, and Yahoo finance. I did not have to pay anything for those available options. However, I found I had to continually update the portfolios, and decided I would just choose the best portfolio manager option. I decided to use M* for that portfolio management information, as I can set up watch lists with all kinds detailed information, that is continually updated there--total return performance data, ER information, Credit rating information, duration, standard deviation, and all kinds of data that would overwhelm a portfolio monitoring screen. M* provides the information that is most valuable to me without a cost. I was a premium subscriber at M* for many years, but found that I did not get anything additional that I found valuable enough to pay for. I also use the Research section of Schwab, which offers some data details, that I cannot easily access at M*. Of course, you can also to the websites of various fund companies, and you can gain additional details there, as part of your due diligence investigations. At any rate, I have not found a compelling reason to pay for information, that is available without cost at other sites.
However, discussion forums are different. I have not found many that are popular enough to get sufficient poster input, to make them useful. However, the platform for providing discussion, varies greatly. The process of moderating and ensuring civil and non-contentious posting, varies greatly. Again, it is all apples and oranges, with pros and cons, at each site. I will continue to evaluate MFO, compared to M*, and other sites, and eventually determine how much to participate in discussion at each site, but for me, I have not formed a strong final opinion, about the discussion forums available.

If you are willing to take on a slight interest rate risk, you can consider Vanguard Short-term treasury index, VSBSX.

https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/VSBSX

Duration is 1.9 years, SEC yield 1.56% and ER 0.07%.
Certainly there is less credit risk as compares to corporate debts.

Nice writeup from Lewis. In 2008 all my Dodge & Cox funds did not fare well - DODFX (-46.7%) and DODGX (-43.3%). With patience they all recovered in next few years and gained more ever since. DODIX was added recently, thus it may have more overlap with DODLX.

Like Ben, I hold ARTJX MGGPX and MIOPX... take a look at MFAPX too which has the best risk adjusted returns for international over last 3 and 5 and 7 years

@davidrmoran, Thanks, I got in incognito. I’ve considered subscribing to Barron’s, but time-wise and money-wise it would mean cutting out the FT. Tough decisions.
Excellent article by Lewis. Yes, DODLX sports above average returns and a below average ER (.45%). Like all D&C funds, it’s essentially managed by a committee. Article quotes Lucy Johns, one of the fund’s seven managers: “ ‘It’s truly a collaborative culture and not a star system.‘ “ Other points to take away: Like DODIX, this fund adheres to a shorter bond duration (3.3 years) than other funds in its peer group. (D&C has long been cautious about current low interest rates.) Article notes the 20% restriction on junk bonds and the fund’s small selective exposure to EM. By and large, this fund hews toward investment grade paper.
I love D&C, although I have more invested with TRP. The two houses’ approaches are quite dissimilar: TRP is publicly owned. D&C is privately owned. TRP offers well over 100 funds. D&C offers just 6. While Price doesn’t “trumpet” star managers, it doesn’t exactly eschew the practice either (David Giroux being one example). To me, D&C has always represented “stodgy and boring.” I kind of like it that way,

@dtconroe
Regarding Tax Cost Ratio (TCR), I don't recall what tax rate / bracket M* uses to calculate the value. The definition M* provides is silent on the topic. For munis, with a TCR of 0% the issue is moot. Perhaps I don't understand TCR fully, but for taxable bond funds, the tax impact is tied to one's specific tax situation / tax rate and whether they are close to a breakpoint in tax brackets. The tax impact of interest / dividends for someone in the 15% tax bracket is different than for someone in the 22% bracket or higher. State and local taxes also need to be considered to get a full picture. Seems like TCR is more a relative vs. absolute measure and one needs to do further due diligence to get the full picture for their particular situation.

This M* widget at the dinky linky seems to be designed for comparing individual bonds, but I don't see why it wouldn't work for funds. It allows you to enter your Federal and State tax rates. I used the latest

SEC yields for the funds I was comparing when I looked into adding a taxable bond fund to my taxed account.
dinky linky.

Sec yield is not an accurate number.
Example: PIMIX sec yield for a couple of years is under 3.5% and PIMIX continues to pay about 5.5% annually.

@dtconroe
Regarding Tax Cost Ratio (TCR), I don't recall what tax rate / bracket M* uses to calculate the value. The definition M* provides is silent on the topic. For munis, with a TCR of 0% the issue is moot. Perhaps I don't understand TCR fully, but for taxable bond funds, the tax impact is tied to one's specific tax situation / tax rate and whether they are close to a breakpoint in tax brackets. The tax impact of interest / dividends for someone in the 15% tax bracket is different than for someone in the 22% bracket or higher. State and local taxes also need to be considered to get a full picture. Seems like TCR is more a relative vs. absolute measure and one needs to do further due diligence to get the full picture for their particular situation.

Bingo. There is no more 15%. It goes 10,12,22,24,32,35,37.
Most USA households will be at 22% and under because MARRIED FILING JOINTLY is up to $186.4K and especially retirees with lower income at retirement compared to when they used to work.
Let's see how it works in reality. If we compare MWCRX to VCFAX for 3 years. Looking at M* tax tab (link)
Performance pre-tax MWCRX 3.5% VCFAX 5.7%
Performance after-tax MWCRX 2.3% VCFAX 3%. The after tax numbers are way off for tax bracket 10,12,22 and even 24 which goes to $321.45K for Fed income
The above means that the difference between MWCRX to VCFAX is not only 0.7% but much higher.

I recommend the risk screens here. I am a recent transplant from M*, though I was never very active on their boards until they destroyed the value of premium membership. I quickly realized that resistance was futile.
I first tried the quick search option on the premium site to evaluate funds for my wife's rollover IRA. It's free. And you can compare up to five tickers at once. I have subsequently purchased access to the whole shebang.
I sought to keep her selection of bond funds simple to understand, high quality, and on the lower end of the duration scale. The first goal being to preserve principal, with some modest hope of compounding over the six years before we have to take RMD's. The second goal was to create a template if something unforeseen happens to me.
From the selection of funds available at Wells Fargo I selected:
Vanguard Inflation Protected Admiral VAIPX. A pure TIP's fund that's AAA rated at 7.38 years duration. Because you never know.
Vanguard GNMA Admiral VFIJX. An intermediate government fun that AAA rated at 2.68 years duration.
Fidelity Intermediate FTHRX. A boring intermediate that's A rated at 3.99 years duration.
Vanguard Short Federal Admiral VSGDX. AA rated, 2.35 years duration.
Payden Low Duration PYSBX. AA rated, 1.9 years duration.
I have the short-term funds because I intend to have her fully invested between now and the end of the year. So there will need to be some guarantee of something there to sell when it comes time for RMD's.
My own IRA collection is more diverse (Christine Benz might call it a sprawling mess) due to my interests, and what is available at Vanguard. But this post is already getting long-winded.
I have been participating in online communities since the days of Compuserve. Just a few thoughts . . .
Paragraphs help readability. White space helps readability.
There will always be more viewers than posters. But jargon can turn people off. After the first page of this thread I just glazed over all the fund symbols listed. Maybe I missed some good ones. So I decided to add enough of the name for viewers to catch the fund family, and the drift of the strategy.
If I'm going to type at all, I find it just as easy to type "open end fund" as I do to type "hey pal, use google." Your mileage may vary.

(Sorry I can’t access Lewis’ article at this time.)
DODLX lost 6.21% In 2015 according to Yahoo Finance. That must be the year I bought in, as I remember taking a substantial “drubbing” on my initial investment. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DODLX/performance/
My own quick perspective - For many years now DODLX has elected to maintain heavy exposure to North American issuers - especially the U.S. That NA exposure is typically north of 50%. I like this fund as companion to RPSIX in my “Diversified Income” sleeve. The differences are substantial however (and DODLX is arguably less risky).
Never mentioned on the board, but of great value to me, is that D&C writes very comprehensive narratives as part of their annual and semi-annual fund reports. These provide thoughtful insights into how the fund is positioned, the process of investing as a study, and their current macro-thinking.

It seems that there has been a lot of interest Muni bond options for taxable accounts recently. It is hard to generalize about whether it is best to purchase a Muni bond fund, or if a taxable bond fund might be a better, or at least an acceptable choice. For some years, I have used Tax Cost Ratios of each fund to help decide if I want to seriously consider it. In case you are not familiar with Tax Cost Ratios, here is its definition from the M* Glossary.
"Tax Cost Ratio
The Morningstar Tax Cost Ratio measures how much a fund's annualized return is reduced by the taxes investors pay on distributions. Mutual funds regularly distribute stock dividends, bond dividends and capital gains to their shareholders. Investors then must pay taxes on those distributions during the year they were received.
Like an expense ratio, the tax cost ratio is a measure of how one factor can negatively impact performance. Also like an expense ratio, it is usually concentrated in the range of 0-5%. 0% indicates that the fund had no taxable distributions and 5% indicates that the fund was less tax efficient.
For example, if a fund had a 2% tax cost ratio for the three-year time period, it means that on average each year, investors in that fund lost 2% of their assets to taxes. If the fund had a three-year annualized pre-tax return of 10%, an investor in the fund took home about 8% on an after-tax basis. (Because the returns are compounded, the after-tax return is actually 7.8%.)"
You can find what the average Tax Cost Ratio is by category, with Munis being 0, short term bonds being .88 Nontraditional bond oef being 1.38, HY bond oefs being 2.06 etc. but you have to go to each fund to find out the Tax Cost Ratio specifics for it. Here are a few examples of TCR for some funds in various categories:
HY Munis: NVHAX and SDHAX (0)
NonTraditional Bond OEFs: MWCRX (1.36), SEMPX (2.13)
Short Term Bond OEFs: DHEAX (1.38), DBLSX (1.13)
HY Bond oefs: ZEOIX (1.20), RPHYX (1.01)
The above TCRs are for 3 years, but at Schwab you can also get them for the last year.

A great article (link). Below are several quotes from this link.
========================
What do you expect to be the key driver of stock market performance over the course of 2020?
Markets climbed a wall of worry in 2019 and nearly all risk assets did very well - essentially the opposite of 2018. We believe we have entered the fear of the fear of missing out. One thing we are watching closely are equity fund flows that were down last year. It's very rare for fund flows in stocks to be negative when the market is up so strongly. But recent data suggests that may be turning. It would be a bearish signal for us to see a large amount of new money flow into equities.
According to Goldman Sachs, two thirds of the market move since 2009 has been earnings growth. However, in 2019, just 8% of the S&P 500 move is explained by earnings growth.
We tend to be bullish when others are bearish and tend to get bearish when others are bullish. Last year, investors were maybe not bearish but definitely cautious given the trade worries and other geopolitical issues. However, today we seem to be moving toward a more euphoric phase which does have us concerned.
What do you expect out of the yield curve in 2020 and what impacts will that have on the bond market and the economy in general?
On the long-end of the curve, we think rates could inch higher but shouldn't jump significantly like we saw in 2017. If I had to make a bet where the 10-year yield will be at year end, I would say around 2.15%.

What are some portfolio tilts and sub-sectors you think investors should focus on this year?
We believe this year could look a lot like 2017 with some minor changes. First and foremost, we think the dollar rolls over and starts to decline. Dollar strength was largely due to the Federal Reserve raising rates for the last few years through 2018. With the Fed lowering rates three times last year (-75 bps) that should start reverberating throughout the markets this year, especially the dollar.
If the dollar does start to decline, we think international equities could finally shine. They have drastically underperformed US equities in the last 10 years. However, they should rebound. Europe and Japan have experienced much slower growth than the US during the recovery and continue to have worse demographics.
In fact, from a valuation standpoint, US stocks have never been more overvalued relative to the rest of the world. This is eventually likely to mean revert and we think a lot of it is due to the negative sentiment regarding the euro and Brexit.
Value stocks may finally do better than growth stocks thanks to the steeper yield curve. The thesis of owning growth stocks during a flattening yield curve and value stocks during steepening could prove true here. We also like small caps more so than large caps (and especially mid caps) given the 20-year low relative valuations. Emerging markets look particularly interesting.
I would still stay away from energy which looks like is going through a secular shift away from fossil fuels.
In fixed income, where are you allocating capital for 2020?
1) Municipals: We've been pushing munis for most of the last year as rates appeared poised to drop. Even today, we think rates pushing 2.00% are not a bad place to put capital. And when you factor in the tax equivalent yields of munis (especially muni CEFs), and consider the risk of these securities which is extremely low, it's hard to beat this sector.
(2) High Yield / Floating Rate: . At these levels, we would say investors in high yield are coupon clippers, meaning that you are likely to receive the yield only with little to no capital gains. The risk is to the downside.

Our favorite area of the market remains mortgages (for the third year in a row). We place them into the high yield/ floating rate sector simply because of our focus on non-agency MBS, which tend to be unrated or lumped into non-investment grade/high yield. Many of these mortgages also are floating rate. Our thesis remains that the investors tend to fight the last battle, which with the Financial Crisis centered on the mortgage market.
(3) Real Assets / REITs: The sector was an under performer in 2019 and we think could be one of the best performers in 2020 as rates stabilize. The fourth quarter of 2019 was the driver of that underperformance as investors moved back to a risk-on environment and away from the "bond proxies."
Total cash returns could be as good as 9% in 2020 with approximately half coming from the yield and 4% to 6% earnings growth. If we see rates meander lower, we think there will be renewed interest in the sector which could help push up prices further. Fundamentals in the sector are strong with property values continuing to move higher.
(4) Preferreds:The asset class is small and has low liquidity which tends to exacerbate the moves lower. It's when these liquidity-induced selloffs occur that you should be buying shares of high quality names. While most talking heads poo-poo preferreds when rates are rising due to their perpetual maturities, this can be an advantage for retail investors. When rates fall, the issuer can call the shares at their discretion and replace them with a lower yielding issue. Today, we are seeing "refinancings" occur even if they can save just 50 bps of interest expense. If rates rise, while the "perpetual value" of your shares may go down, it does lock in your income stream for longer.
=====================
FD: and this is why most of my money is in HY Munis + Multisector specializing in MBS/Securitized

I had a very pleasant, though short, conversation with David Sherman today. They've filed a reopening notice (technically, a 497 / Material Change notice) with the SEC today. Fund assets peaked north of $900 million, they closed and now assets are down to $700 million or so. That's manageable, so they reopened. David speculates that the outflows are FOMO-driven; every time the stock market hits a new high, investors yank more cash from the fund.
RPHYX had the distinction of having the highest Sharpe ratio of any fund in existence for years. It's a low volatility / low risk fund that's best used as a strategic cash fund. (I've owned it for a long time and use it in lieu of a savings account.) It has averaged 3.1% annually with a maximum drawdown, lifetime, of 0.6%. David's current reading of the market, bond as much as equity, is that it's time to maximum caution and his funds are positioned commensurately.
Morningstar calls it a high-yield fund, which is silly (it's correlation to the group is about .6) but unavoidable given the categories available to them. Lipper classifies it as short-term high-yield, which is fair. It's a Great Owl.

I believe they will Lewis because that's the way the world is moving. Progress might be slow and measured but I think we might be shocked by the investing landscape 10 years from now compared to today. Just in energy related issues alone we'll see more alt-energy adopted, batteries, electric vehicles even if just hybrid types and the list goes on. Changes are coming, at least I hope so.

@Crash,
A fund that I own that is good at manufacturing income is AZNAX. Morningstar list it's TTM yield at 1.87%; but, the fact is that it pays 7 cents per share per month for a distribution yield (including capital gains) of 7.34% based upon current nav and has its SEC yield listed at 3.08%. This might be something to look at for income seekers. I hold this fund in my hybrid income sleeve and I have owned it for a good number of years. Years back, I remember, Scott touted this fund when he was posting; but, I can't find a link to his post about it.
To view fund distributions ... From M*'s quote sheet click on the performance tab when the performance sheet loads then click on the distribution tab where the fund distributions made can be viewed.
My best to you.
Skeet

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/13/this-was-the-best-strategy-for-picking-stocks-the-last-10-years.html
This was the best strategy for picking stocks the last 10 years
Picking stocks with high dividend yields was the best strategy for investors over the last decade, Bank of America said.
Low interest rates and steady economic growth made dividend stocks attractive, even the riskier ones with the highest yields.
The strategy would not have worked in 2019, when the S&P 500 outperformed high yielding stocks.
Wonder if this would work next 30 yrs...

Umm....yes I do. It's not about what you can see in the rear-view mirror (recency bias) but what is ahead from a longer term perspective. Secular bull markets in stocks last about 20 years and the current bull is only 6-7 years old (2013). Much, much higher asset prices lie ahead in the coming years driven by technology, new industries, and demographics.

@hank: I'm sorry to hear of you're problem, so to speak. Did you stand pat or move on ? You've caught my ear & I would like to hear more .
Have a good week, Derf

Thanks Derf! (I wasn’t asking for sympathy.) :) Oppenheimer never had more than 10% of my assets. What they offered were some niche funds others didn’t. Some were gems / other clunkers. But when you’re with a house for a quarter century you accumulate a deep understanding of their offerings and operation that’s difficult to replicate elsewhere. So I miss their operation, even though it wasn’t the sharpest gang on the block in all respects.
As far as “voting with one’s feet” - that’s all too easy to do in this day and age - often with just a few key strokes. And my fuse is as short (or shorter) than the next guy’s. To answer your question, I’m in the process of moving about one-third of my already small holdings at OPP/ Invesco to T. Rowe. What remains is mostly split between their miners’ fund (which has benefitted from gold’s uptick) and some cash. Also have a tad in an alternative fund there.
The issue of fund house closings / mergers might have significance to the broader mutual fund community. My own issues were mentioned merely to represent what that circumstance might entail and how it might affect others. If you were dumb enough to pay a front load for those A shares 25 years ago (I was), than perhaps the “sting” is felt a bit sharper.