People don't have money to invest because too many live outside of their means. You want to pay off your debt? Well, then don't go out to the bars 2-3 times a week. Don't buy that new $150 pair of shoes that you don't need. Bring your lunch to work instead of spending $7-15 per meal. People need to have a better understanding of money and how much they can really afford. This education should be done in high school, if not earlier.

Agree. That too. I had a conversation once with my daughter when she was young regarding "I need an iPhone" vs "I want an iPhone". Money has no value and conversely people don't understand value of money. My daughter's iPhone was purchased by HER after she had to do a summer job and get PAID from someone other than her daddy.
I will say though, the "want" people unfortunately tarnish the "need" people, and then at the end of it, everyone suffers. For every $15 lunch idiot is another for whom $1 McDonald burger is lunch.

The SAI says "the Dunham Alternative Strategy Fund is considered the successor to the Sherwood Forest Alternative Strategy Fund" as a result of a reorganization (Feb 22, 2013) that moved the fund from the World Funds Trust to the Dunham Funds.
Morningstar's data on DNSAX says that the fund's inception date was Feb. 12, 2009. So M* seems to agree that Sherwood wasn't killed, but rather reorganized and renamed. Dunham became legal manager, with Sherwood moving from advisor to subadvisor keeping the same day-to-day managers.
Here's the reorganization (proxy) notice. According to its financials, the class A shares (launched June 11, 2009) never reached $1M AUM (except pro forma when combined with P shares). But class A that was the smallest share class. The oldest shares, class I, peaked over $18M in 2010 and still had nearly $11M in 2012. After 2010, all the share classes were in free fall.
The SAI says that the "Trust" (Dunham Funds) was formed Nov. 28, 2007. But Dunham apparently didn't contain any funds until March 3, 2008, when it acquired a number of AdvisorOne funds. It acquired more funds from Kelmoore on Sept. 29, 2008. It seems Dunham is basically just a fund scavenger.

It's in midst of ~20% drawdown which began in earnest in Feb. 2015. Very unusual situation in that the subadvisor, Market Concepts LLC, seems to run almost no money outside of the fund. When comparing assets in their ADV to assets reported for fund, fund accounted for nearly everything. While that's not unheard of, this subadvisor doesn't appear to have a long/distinguished track record of running managed futures money elsewhere previously. (There was another alts fund, Sherwood Forest Alternative, that same managers ran for a time but it was launched after Dunham fund (6/09 inception) and killed off in Jan. 2013 having never surpassed $1MM in assets.) Kind of hard to understand why they were hired to begin with and how the advisor could be comfortable offering a fund whose subadvisor was seemingly so dependent on the fund for AUM/viability.
Jeff Ptak
Morningstar

People don't have money to invest because too many live outside of their means. You want to pay off your debt? Well, then don't go out to the bars 2-3 times a week. Don't buy that new $150 pair of shoes that you don't need. Bring your lunch to work instead of spending $7-15 per meal. People need to have a better understanding of money and how much they can really afford. This education should be done in high school, if not earlier.

TRGRX. I still own it. Manager: Nina Jones. (TRP.) Can't complain. Top 29% in category during her tenure--- about a year and a half, only since 4/2015.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1420040/000158064216011182/dunhamaltstrat497s.htm
497 1 dunhamaltstrat497s.htm 497
DUNHAM FUNDS
Dunham Alternative Strategy Fund
Class A (DAASX)
Class C (DCASX)
Class N (DNASX)
Supplement dated September 26, 2016 to the Statutory Prospectus (the “Prospectus”)
and the Summary Prospectus both dated February 26, 2016
This Supplement updates and supersedes any contrary information contained in the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus.
The Board of Trustees of the Dunham Funds (the “Trust”) has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the Dunham Alternative Strategy Fund (the “Fund”) pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”) on or about October 28, 2016 (“Liquidation Date”). This date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.
Suspension of Sales. Effective the close of business on September 30, 2016, the Fund will no longer sell shares to new investors or existing shareholders, including through exchanges into the Fund from other Dunham Funds. Also, as of September 30, 2016, the Fund will no longer pursue its investment objective and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed.
Mechanics. In connection with the Liquidation, any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. The proceeds of any such redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after the Fund has paid or provided for all of its charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities. The distribution to shareholders of these liquidation proceeds will occur as soon as practicable, and will be made to all shareholders of the Fund of record at the time of the Liquidation. Additionally, the Fund must declare and distribute to shareholders any realized capital gains and all net investment income no later than the final Liquidation distribution. Dunham & Associates Investment Counsel, Inc., the Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”), intends to distribute substantially all of the Fund’s net investment income prior to the Liquidation. The Adviser will bear all expenses in connection with the Liquidation to the extent such expenses exceed the amount of the Fund’s normal and customary fees and expenses accrued by the Fund through the Liquidation Date, provided that such accrued amounts are first applied to pay for the Fund’s normal and customary fees and expenses.
Other Alternatives. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares of the Fund and receive the net asset value thereof, pursuant to the procedures set forth under “HOW TO REDEEM SHARES” in the Prospectus. Shareholders may also exchange their Fund shares for shares of the same class of any other Dunham Fund, as described in and subject to any restrictions set forth under “HOW TO EXCHANGE SHARES” in the Prospectus.
U.S. Federal Income Tax Matters. Although the Liquidation is not expected to be a taxable event for the Fund, for shares held in a taxable account, the automatic redemption of shares of the Fund on the Liquidation Date will generally be treated as any other redemption of shares (i.e., as a sale that may result in gain or loss for federal income tax purposes). Instead of waiting until the Liquidation Date, a shareholder may voluntarily redeem his or her shares prior to the Liquidation Date to the extent that the shareholder wishes to realize any such gains or losses prior thereto. See “TAX STATUS, DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS” in the Prospectus. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors regarding the tax treatment of the Liquidation.
If you have any questions regarding the Liquidation, please contact the Fund at (888) 3DUNHAM (338-6426).
Investors Should Retain This Supplement For Future Reference
2

Hi Guys,
Based on numerous research studies, we have known for some time that female investors outperform their male counterparts. Here is a Link that reviews and reinforces that conclusion:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/male-investors-vs-female-investors-how-do-they-compare-1430709406
So why aren't there more female members in the population of mutual fund managers?
As an investor class, women are characterized as more prudent, more patient, more longer term goal oriented investors than us males. Compared to them we suck. Yet the mutual fund industry has not taken advantage of these needed and successful investment attributes. Data that I've seen from the likes of Morningstar and others suggest that the mutual fund management cohort is male dominated. In rough numbers, 90% of funds are managed solely by men, 7% by a mixed team, and only 3% by females alone.
It seems likely that the mixed teams might be a worthwhile option since each member group brings a slightly different and possibly profitable set of skills, insights, and instincts into the game.
I seem to recall reading that female fund managers do better in many cases, and never poorer, than their male counterparts. What do you think?
Best Regards.

The paper does not express concepts clearly, giving the writers the benefit of the doubt that there are well-defined underlying concepts.
For example, is human capital "the net present value of his or her future earnings" (p. 6, pdf p.8)? That's how I would have defined it.
But in the spreadsheet (Figure 12, p. 17, pdf p. 19), human capital is shown to be the present value of future savings. Put a savings rate of 0% into column D, and your human capital comes out as 0. So I guess if you're not going to save anything, you might as well not work, even if you could bring in a half million bucks a year, as in the spreadsheet example?
Getting back to bee's question about reading the chart. First, remember that it is illustrative. The only thing it's designed to show is that as you get older, your human capital declines (as you, well, decline). Consequently, even if your financial assets don't grow, they grow as a percentage of your total. That's all you can read into this chart.
Second, the value of human capital (as muddled through above) is not your annual salary, but your lifetime future earnings reduced to present value. Take your hypothetical person earning $25K at age 25, with salary expected to grow to $100K at age 60. Suppose that this is the last year he plans to work.
At age 25, the human capital (using 3% discount rate) is worth somewhere around $1.2M. (With 0% discount, you'd get a bit over $2M.) At age 60, the human capital is worth around $100K (one final year's earnings). The youngster has a lot more, not less, human capital than the senior about to retire.
I agree with the paper's idea of reducing future income (e.g. future wages) to NPV and increasing equity allocation accordingly. Beyond that, I'd look closely at every assumption and calculation (and figure label, e.g. there are two Figure 10s) in the paper.
I would apply the same idea to Social Security - another income stream that one can reduce to present value and use to increase equity allocations.

Check out this article:

Thanks for the article. If I am reading this chart correctly.

The chart illustrates that a 25 year old has 9x as much human capital as financial assets. A 40 year old has an equal amount of human capital as financial assets and at 60 year old should have financial assets equal about 9X their human capital. This chart seems like a pretty good way to gauge where a worker needs to be in the process of using human capital to accumulate financial assets which I assume is the intent of this chart.
I'll assume we're equating human capital (income producing activities moment by moment) to accumulated financial wealth.
As a simple example, if human capital at 25 years old is say, "$50K", then by 40 years old financial assets should equal "$50K". A 25 year old has 15 years to save some of his/her human capital each year to reach this goal at age 40. This amounts to investing about $2100 / yr with an average return of 4%. Seems very achievable.
If at age 60 your human capital is say "$100K", your financial assets should equal "$900K". A 40 year old has 20 years to invest some of his/her human capital each year to reach this goal at age 60. This would amount to investing about $25,500 / yr with an average return of 4%. This seems a bitt more challenging especially when things like college tuition, weddings, and elderly parents (or unemployed kids) are siphoning off some of your human capital.

Hi sma3,
With the apps we've employed on MFO Premium site, it's only possible to "stick" headings when the number of display parameters fit on one screen. So, that's what we do with GO, Three Alarm, Dashboard, etc. But with MultiSearch, which outputs some 80 parameters, we can't use sticky headers.
Next best thing, we've just implemented a vertical scroll bar. You will still be able to define max number of funds in vertical scroll window and even page to matching funds, but now the headers will always be visible, even as you scroll horizontally.
The vertical scroll window will dynamically span about 2/3 of browser window when viewing with relatively modern browsers.
Here's screenshot of new feature. Hope this helps address your recommendation.

Appreciate the feedback, as always.
c

Thanks @TSP_Transfer for the information.
In its review, I selected Hartford Growth Opportunities (HGOAX) since it contained about 6% of it's holdings in pre-ipo holdings, UBER being one of them. It is classifed as a large growth fund by M*. It's return are as follows for ytd/2.61%, 1015/10.55%, 2014/13.46%, 2013/34.75% & 2012/26.23%. Notice it has performed better than the above public private equity and/or business development offerings studied. However, when compared to the other three large/mid cap funds (AGTHX, JDCAX & SPECX) that I own there was not enough performance difference, for me, to warrant a switch out to the Hartford Fund.
Thanks again for posting the information and making comment.
Skeet

Year old article, but relevent.
Getting Into The Unicorn Boom: 10 Mutual Funds With Stakes In Pre-I P O Tech Stars
by Steve Schaefer , FORBES STAFF
Of course, for most investors there’s little need to chase the rich valuations brewing in private markets. Almost every high-profile I P O in recent years has revisited its offering price, including Facebook, Twitter TWTR +21.42% and Alibaba . But for those keen on getting early exposure, mutual funds that allocate a portion of their holdings to the space, without betting the farm that every billion-dollar startup is going to be a long-term success, is a reasonable strategy.
According to Pitchbook’s 2015 Unicorn Report, T. Rowe Price owns stakes in 14 unicorns, outpaced by only Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horiwitz, Kleiner Perkins and SV Angel. Wellington Management has participated in funding for 12 unicorns, while Fidelity has been involved in eight such capital raises.
The table below shows 10 of the funds that own stakes in the tech world’s unicorns, and even though the businesses have lofty valuations, they still represent a small piece of the funds’ overall portfolios

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2015/10/14/unicorns-funds-fidelity-trowe-uber-dropbox/#76f71c9f57f4
Crony Capitalism for the Private Equity and Investment Banking Set ?
This is listed as an opinion piece,but still worthwhile for further background.
Startup Valuations, Mutual Funds, And The Saga Of Blue Bottle
June 16, 2016 - By Max Cherney
...mutual fund valuations are one of the few hard data points the public has to assess what the company’s shares are worth, or at least what mutual funds think they are. And that’s important—more than it has been historically—because of changes introduced by a 2012 law: the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act
Sold as a way to make the growing practice of crowdfunding legit, the JOBS Act also contained a provision that has had a profound impact on how companies are funded and at what point they go public: the fed axed the 500 rule—requiring a company to go public after it had more than 500 shareholders—and now only requires a company to I P O after it hits 2,000 accredited investors (though the number remains at 500 if those investors are not accredited).
Without the JOBS Act, Airbnb and Uber would likely have been required to go public (as Facebook was). Hence the number of large, private companies has swelled—why put an enterprise at the mercy of Wall Street’s grueling quarterly expectations if not absolutely necessary?
https://mattermark.com/startup-valuations-mutual-funds-saga-blue-bottle/
The coffee wars of San Francisco are back on!
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/25/blue-bottle-coffee-is-raising-another-a-big-round-of-funding/?
Silicon Valley is known for plenty unusual investments, anywhere from alternative food products to space exploration, and the coffee industry is certainly no exception. But there’s logic to it: there’s a huge coffee market and a near-perfect comparable in the market, with Starbucks hanging out at an $80 billion valuation. For any coffee company, capturing even a fracture of that market already means the company has hit unicorn status

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM D
Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities
Name of Issuer
Blue Bottle Coffee, Inc.
Jurisdiction of Incorporation/Organization
DELAWARE
Year of Incorporation/Organization
Over Five Years Ago
X Within Last Five Years (Specify Year) 2012
Yet to Be Formed
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1560324/000156032415000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml
https://techcrunch.com/unicorn-leaderboard/
Boy ! Did we miss this one !
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/theranos#/entiy
SCIENCE
Lesson of Theranos: Fact-Checking Alone Isn't Enough
AUG 8, 2016 10:00 AM EDT
By
Faye Flam @ Bloomberg
Elizabeth Holmes,at just 32, is the founder and chief executive officer of the high-tech diagnostics company Theranos, a startup valued at $9 billion that promised to revolutionize blood testing. Until recently, she was the world’s youngest female self-made billionaire..
Aug 8, 2016 Bloomberg - Lesson of Theranos: Fact-Checking Alone Isn't Enough
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-08/lesson-of-theranos-fact-checking-alone-isn-t-enough
TECHNOLOGY NEWS | Fri Sep 23, 2016 | 6:52pm EDT (Reuters)
Twitter initiates talks with tech companies over sale: sourceA sale of Twitter has been the subject of on-again, off-again rumors for many months as the company grapples with stagnant user growth, soft advertising sales and losses running at hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
The company's business struggles have come even as the 10-year-old service has evolved into a potent global source of news, entertainment and social commentary.
CNBC, citing anonymous sources, reported on Friday that Twitter is in talks with companies including Google (GOOGL.O) and may receive a formal bid soon. A source told Reuters that Salesforce.com (CRM.N) is also in pursuit.
TECHNOLOGY NEWS | Fri Sep 23, 2016 | 4:29pm EDT (Reuters )
Facebook apologizes for overstating key ad metric
Facebook has made a significant strides into video, which has attracted significant advertising interest and has benefited from the shift in advertising spending toward the internet and other mobile platforms.
Revenue from advertising was the biggest driver to company's total revenue in the latest quarter, surging 63 percent to $6.24 billion. "This could pose a serious blow to Facebook's video proposition, which has had so much of momentum over the last two years," said Sarah Wood, co-CEO of ad tech company Unruly, which is owned by News Corp.http://www.reuters.com/news/archive/technologyNews

Hi @MOZART325,
Thank you for your sugestion to look at GSVC and SVVC.
The first screen that I took these to task was a performance screen test.
Here was the results with their respective performance ... ytd ... 2015 ... 2014 ... 2013 ... & 2012.
LPEFX ... 1.65% ... (-0.56%) ... 0.44% ... 41.26% ... 29.70%
GSCV ... (-18.35%) ... 8.57% ... (-28.62%) ... 43.42% ... (-39.57%)
SVVC ... (-14.53) ... (-56.19%) ... 5.78% ... 34.67% ... 21.70%
Negative years are in (-x.xx%)
After review of this analysis I went no further since LPEFX was the better performer and goes to show how tough of space private equity and business development operates with the losses the other two have had. And, it makes me feel better about my pick to invest in this space through LPEFX.
Thanks again for you suggestion to review the subjects.

@rforno,
Thanks for making comment.
What might be other options for the small retail investor seeking exposure in some privetly held companies through a mutual fund wrapper? Any suggestions you might have to offer would be appreciated.
For information purposes ... I have owned this fund since October 2011 with my total return in the fund being better than 80% and with annualized returns being about 12.7% as detailed in my last brokerage account statement. In addition, the yield on amount invested, for me, is about 4.5%. In this low yield environment I think I'll continue to hold it. While it might not be right for some I am pleased, thus far, with what it has done for me.
Again, I'd like to take a look at at some other options if you have a similar mutual fund to offer.
Thanks again ... for your comment.
Old_Skeet

Worth a read: nytimes.com/2016/09/25/business/your-mutual-fund-has-your-proxy-like-it-or-not.html

I give more weight to performance 3 years and a few funds I've owned over 10 years.. At age 82 I don't have a alot of time. Other than index funds I only own VWINX-HBLIX, PRBLX, POGRX, PRWCX, VEIPX and GTLLX and 2 bond funds PIMIX and TGEIX.

Hi Guys,
What a disaster! The chart tells a story of cumulative failure. It is an outright disgrace.
The failure that I perceive is not a national failure. It is the failure of the individual and/or the individual family unit. The USA is a prosperous nation with almost unlimited potential wealth for its citizens. Yet the wealth depicted in the accompanying chart is truly dismal for individual folks.
The opportunities exist, but our financial discipline fails us as individuals. We want and demand the storybook good life before we can afford it. Delaying gratification would go a long way to resolving this problem. The small numbers shown in the chart as a function of age demonstrate the issue. The problem would quickly desolve if we just practiced the saving discipline that many of us displayed until roughly the early 1980s. We seemed to toss frugality to the wind in that era and have never recovered from that reckless joyride.
Here is a Link to a nice PBS presentation that highlights some of the significant conflicting issues:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/why-so-many-americans-in-the-middle-class-have-no-savings/
My wife and I never succumbed to the temptation to overspend. We always saved about 15% of our gross income and invested wisely. I suppose that it was a wise decision to study the investment process. We did and we prospered. As a result, it is no exaggeration to claim we are chart busters. Some luck, some skill, but above all a disciplined saving and spending behavior.
I truly feel sorry for the median and below folks that are depicted by the chart. Those folks are in constant danger of being decimated by an unexpected negative happening that a few hundred dollars could easily cure.
Best Wishes.

I just went over to the government's TSP site and used their calculator to see what the "worth" in SS income of an equivalent annuity would be. Since I wanted a value for the bottom tier who may have almost no real savings or home ownership, I chose $1000/mo as their SS income. I think the annuity purchase closest to SS would be an increasing value payout with 100% survivor benefit. $400,000 would buy the annuity with a $1022/mo benefit. (Both members of a couple assumed to be age 66. Without the increasing component it would have been about $250,000. I don't know what the best price elsewhere would be.) Monthly benefit equivalents larger than $1022/mo would, of course, cost more if plugged into this calculator. Those of us with many times the savings required should appreciate the "ownership" of this tier to their "SS derived worth" even if, or especially if, the expense of annuities is up enormously due to low rates.

It has recovered, yes, but still lags well behind OAKBX and FPACX (say) for 10y and 20y, and behind FPURX and VBINX for 10y.