Thanks Ted
for the link to usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/moderate-allocation --
Of Interest, fpacx is # 31 on their List !!

@ducrow & MFO Members:: Here's the problem with OAKBX and it's performance: Very long-term 10-15 years excellent, medium term 3-5 years below par, recent term YTD- 1 year horrible.
Regards,
Ted
Years: Percentile Rank:
15 2
10 12
5 58
3 35
1 89
YTD 91

I can't believe how terribly late to the party Barron is, muni CEFs are trading with a one year z-score of 2-3.... if this article leads to another jump, i'll be a seller.
"As munis have climbed in value, yields have fallen. The average high-rated intermediate term municipal bond yields just 1.6%. After-tax, that’s still way better than a 10-year Treasury, but not a lot of income.
One solution to the income dilemma is to buy a closed-end muni fund. Because many of them use leverage (borrowing short-term to buy longer-term bonds) they average 5% yields. The funds typically trade at discounts to net asset value, but those have narrowed substantially in the past year, boosting returns. The average total return in this niche is 11% over the last 12 months, reports Morningstar."
google search results here

right, 'pro-rata' basis is more common, if such language exists.
there are a couple of fund families without such language.
in kind distribution, similar to creation of a side-pocket, is an admission by the fund sponsor that they had failed. no one forgives this. several hedge funds did survive the side pockets -- very large ones such as Citadel, but Highbridge and others folded. for a mutual fund it is a kiss of death. that is why even having this language in the documents the management companies would do anything possible to avoid the process.
it seems that sequoia is moving to orderly liquidate the fund -- hence an attempt to protect the remaining shareholders.

Fundalarm said: "I am amazed their mutual fund had such language ... i went though many act 40 prospectuses and haven't seen such disclosure ..."
From Full Prospectus for Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Fund (page 16):
Redemptions “In-Kind.” Shares may be “redeemed in-kind” under certain circumstances (such as a lack of liquidity in the Fund’s portfolio to meet redemptions). That means that the redemption proceeds will be paid in securities from the Fund’s portfolio on a pro-rata basis, possibly including illiquid securities. If the Fund redeems your shares in-kind, you may bear transaction costs and will bear market risks until such securities are converted into cash.
Haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure this is standard boilerplate for all their funds.
https://www.oppenheimerfunds.com/investors/doc/Capital_Appreciation_Fund_Full_Prospectus.pdf?dig_asset_metrics=done

@ducrow,
GM is the fund's largest holding (at just over 4%). GM's down nearly 15% over the past year. They've only recently (past 3 years) acquired GM - sensing deep value. Either the bet pays off or it's a classic value-trap. Oakmark is known to dump companies when they feel they've made a mistake - so I suppose that's a third possibility. Lipper places the fund in its "mixed equity" category and gives it a 5 (highest) for category performance, but only a 3 (average) for consistent performance . So much of this ratings game depends on the category one places a fund in. Looks like the fund averaged about 6% over past 3, 5 and 10-year periods.
Haven't paid much attention to their fixed income holdings lately. The fund has never played much in the junk bond area (where there may still be value). It's just not their game. And (IMHO) the investment grade universe today more closely resembles Disneyland than a serious investment option. (Returns on a 10 year Treasury held to maturity should net the owner about 1.5% per year after expenses. Sound attractive?) So, most likely, the fund has gone very short on its fixed income component (around 35%) which helps explain the low returns for fixed. To them, in the current environment, fixed income is more of a defensive holding than a way to generate return.
I've owned OAKBX for close to 15 years* (currently 9-10% of holdings). No plans to do anything - just not my nature. But can understand others' concerns. Am sure you'll find better performers on the chart Ted linked. As for this fund "getting crushed" anytime soon ... don't hold your breath waiting. :)
*Temporarily moved all of it to their more aggressive OAKGX for 1-2 years starting in early '09.

1.11% yield but calls itself an income fund....never made sense to me.

Fundalarm said: "I am amazed their mutual fund had such language ... i went though many act 40 prospectuses and haven't seen such disclosure ..."
From Full Prospectus for Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Fund (page 16):
Redemptions “In-Kind.” Shares may be “redeemed in-kind” under certain circumstances (such as a lack of liquidity in the Fund’s portfolio to meet redemptions). That means that the redemption proceeds will be paid in securities from the Fund’s portfolio on a pro-rata basis, possibly including illiquid securities. If the Fund redeems your shares in-kind, you may bear transaction costs and will bear market risks until such securities are converted into cash.
Haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure this is standard boilerplate for all their funds.
https://www.oppenheimerfunds.com/investors/doc/Capital_Appreciation_Fund_Full_Prospectus.pdf?dig_asset_metrics=done

Here are some Muni C E F's with current Premium/
Discounts to nav ( Pricey ?)
NUW + 2.34
NMZ +1.29
OIA -0.26
NBH +1.04
Good spots for further research.
Nuveen Tax-Exempt Municipal Debt - National Municipals
http://www.nuveen.com/CEF/DailyPricingTaxExempt.aspx
Source for C E F reseach
http://www.cefconnect.com
I have OIA on my watch list and own @fundalarm mentioned BGH
From Bill Gross
In a world of barely visible interest rates, it pays to borrow, rather than invest, Bill Gross tells Barron's. One way to do that is are closed-end funds which borrow and lever assets 35-50%, and his fund,:JUCAX, has 8-9% of its money in CEFs trading at a discount to NAV. Two favorites are the Nuveen Preferred Income Opportunities fund (NYSE:JPC) and the Duff & Phelps Global Utility Income fund (NYSE:DPG). (These two are not muni's)
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3172321-bill-gross-let-others-borrow
Mr Gundlach has also mentioned C E F's in recent commentaries as viable income producers in the current investment environment.
Speaking of Mr Gundlach,maybe he'll be clear on his outlook for High Yield and other financial assets in the coming week.Usually fun to listen to in this format.

Asset Allocation Webcast
Please join us for a live webcast titled "Asset Allocation Webcast" hosted by:
Jeffrey Gundlach
Mr. Gundlach will be discussing the economy, the markets and his outlook for what he believes may be the best investment strategies and sector allocations for the DoubleLine Core Fixed Income Fund (DBLFX/DLFNX) and Flexible Income Fund (DFLEX/DLINX).
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
1:15 pm PT/4:15 pm ET /3:15 CT
Register here
https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1085514

Wow! I just took a look at NHMAX it has matched its previous all time high of 17.51
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NHMAX+Interactive#{"range":"5y","allowChartStacking":true}

Good stuff, but imho, the videos have gotten a little repetitive. Nowadays I'm finding the portfolio reviews more informative; most of the newer material he covers in the videos seems to be also in the reviews, and it doesn't take 15 minutes to read the reviews. Again, just mho - not saying he isn't still doing a great job communicating.

Jerry's correct above. And I won't argue that Sequoia management screwed up royally in managing their fund.
But here's the crux of the WSJ article:
"Sequoia’s repayment approach, called a “redemption in kind,” is part of a longstanding fund policy that allows it to give shareholders mostly stock if they are pulling out $250,000 or more. A person close to the firm said it has done thousands of in-kind transactions over many years and that the majority are done for redemptions in excess of $1 million."
If Sequoia failed to disclose RIK in its Prospectus that's a serious legal matter. In all likelihood it was mentioned. I've seen similar language in many prospectuses for my funds. It's not uncommon. Bottom line: Read and understand your Prospectus before you invest.
Additionally ... How many on this board will ever have occasion to pull a quarter-million dollars from one fund all at once (which is what triggered the RIK in this case)?
WSJ fails to address Mr. Bently's age and circumstance. Sequoia's annual/semi-annual reports should have revealed to him that Sequoia was concentrated in only a dozen or so securities. Ed S. addresses this issue in David's April 1 Commentary. In a nutshell: Potential rewards are high with a concentrated portfolio. So are the risks. If I'm reading Ed correctly, he has serious reservations concerning the suitability of highly concentrated portfolios for retirees.
msf has a good thread running on the topic of disclosure. Personally, I'm often guilty of clicking on "Accept these terms" without due diligence whenever Apple, Amazon or PayPal update their terms of use (not smart I know). But I love reading financial literature and so very much enjoy reading over prospectuses and reports for the funds I own. (And don't like the dumbed-down "summary" prospectuses either.)

FYI: (Click On Article At Top Of Google Search)
Home, they say, is where you make it. For Bill Gross, 71, manager of the Janus Global Unconstrained Bond fund, home these days is a small suite in an office tower in Newport Beach, Calif., down the road from Pacific Investment Management, or Pimco, the asset-management firm he co-founded in 1971 and ran until leaving abruptly in 2014, following a few years of poor investment results and an ugly management spat.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Bill+Gross:+Why+Interest+Rates+Must+Rise+Barron's

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
A glance at the best and worst performers.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=leaders+and+laggerds+first+quarter+2016+barron's

http://www.seafarerfunds.com/video/2016/03/quarterly-briefing/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2016-04-06 Quarterly Briefing Individual Investor - Monthly&utm_content=2016-04-06 Quarterly Briefing Individual Investor - Monthly+CID_093448545840c6355a189d212fe43027&utm_source=E mail Campaign&utm_term=Quarterly Briefing
For those invested-- or who just like to watch-- here's one "interpretive reading" of the continuing EM turmoil. (Maybe) every little bit counts.

I opened trust accounts with Vanguard and did not have any issues or complex paperwork to fill out. A copy of the trust was required and mailed with the application.
Vanguard customer reps kept me informed via email with the status of the applications (multiple accounts). Old_Joe, the 12 page application is a standard application for all types of accounts (including trusts), asks for information on contacts, address, funding and tax status which is basic for establishing an account. It was not difficult to complete, most was fill-in. I don't know what being legalistic means or being a big deal in your post, maybe you could elaborate.
Additionally Old_Joe, I had to provide the same information with my bank when opening a trust checking account. The experience of going to Schwab & Fidelity local office to establish/document & fund your accounts rather than mail is kind of of comparing apples to oranges. Now I'm not saying Vanguard is easier, better or whatever from Fidelity or Schwab but doing things by mail is different. Maybe you should re-think going to Vanguard and find a Schwab substitute for VWINX if your having trouble or doubts.

Vanguard is not that hard to deal with in theory. One needs to recognize that they are meticulous about following (and creating) rules. If one knows all the rules beforehand and plans on their being followed to the letter, things will go fine.
Realistically, most people are not so fastidious, and in unusual or complex situations get burned with Vanguard.
A couple of quick examples related to the estate I mentioned:
- Though I had POA, I expected Vanguard to freeze the accounts the instant I informed them of the death of the owner, and not to have access (even viewing access) until probate was started and I had letters testamentary. So I checked to see whether any last minute moves should be made (none needed), downloaded all records, and then called Vanguard. It took them a few hours to freeze everything, but otherwise they acted as expected.
- The deceased had written a couple of checks prior to death (I suppose "prior to death" goes without saying) that I really wanted to see clear. These were written against a Fidelity account. Fidelity said that they (like Vanguard) were supposed to shut down the account immediately, but that Fidelity would allow the checks to clear if they came through in the next couple of days. Much more reasonable, though likely not following the letter of the law.
With respect to min balances - I believe Fidelity will also close accounts that drop below the min balance. Vanguard says that it will convert Admiral shares to Investor shares if the balance drops too low. My experience there is that they do that conversion on closed funds but not on open funds they're not monitoring closely. So even Vanguard isn't 100% rigid.
Finally, regarding old MMFs - The original one was The Reserve Primary. After that, I believe was Dreyfus Liquid Assets (early 1974). Vanguard jumped in the next year with VMMXX.

Thanks fundalarm nice post above. So let's get off topic. Any insights on bank loan/senior loans/leveraged loan/floating rate funds???? Talk about a stealth bull market or at least one under the radar. Some of the open end ala EVFAX have had but one down day since 2/17 and a multi percentage rise. Plus juicy yields around 5%. I hold EVFAX and SAMBX overbought as they are. Not as exciting recently as NHMRX or the junk corps and emerging markets debt when they are moving, but real steady eddies. Below is an excerpt of some comments in early March in Barrons on this often misunderstood asset class.
>>>>>Most loan funds have attractive yields of 5% to 6%—up to 9% for closed-end funds. Loan funds have credit risk, but are much less volatile than junk-bond funds when credit conditions weaken; and loan investors get paid back before bondholders in the event of a default. The loan market has about 4% exposure to the troubled energy sector now, compared to 15% for junk bonds.
As an added bonus, most loans have interest rates that float with prevailing rates. So if the Fed hikes several more times, many loans will yield more. Without interest-rate risk, loans tend not to correlate with other fixed-income assets.
Now is a good time to buy, because these loans are selling at about a 10% discount to par. They sold off, along with high yield, as investors worried that the U.S. was going into recession, but they haven’t recovered. “The asset class has always offered a nice risk-adjusted return over a three-to-five- year time period,” says Craig Russ, co-director of floating-rate loans at Eaton Vance. “But the last two years they’ve underperformed, creating this attractive entry point.”
There’s another good sign, says Jean Joseph, a portfolio manager at Goldman Sachs Asset Management: The default rate priced into the loan market is 7.5%, when the average default rate historically is 3%; and the current rate is still below that. “The market is pricing in defaults close to 2.5 times what we expect this year,” Joseph says.<<<<<<<<

This is one of the better threads since I joined.
Any thoughts on how this liquidity trap will affect stocks? (I do not think I'm going into stocks anytime soon.)
My guess is that we have not come to the 'point of recognition' about the trap. Once that happens I'm guessing it would be a negative for stocks and then a trading range at a low p/e. Possibly, there would be another internet stock crash.

That point of recognition may be a long way off. The baby boomers have in their memory the early 1980s and their high interest rates. I think that is part of the reason people got into gold and expect inflation. They see the Fed 'printing money' and they think that it will cause inflation. They think it has to cause inflation all that money printing. There are many more pressures offsetting the Fed actions that the Fed actions don't really do anything.
The classical causes of inflation, full employment, full factory utilization and shortages of materials are not a factor when you are talking about world wide free trade.
Then there is automation and artificial intelligence. They have not really gotten started and will keep inflation down.
I feel I just talked myself into changing my weighting of stocks and bonds!

i hope you're now suggesting that Gundlach doesn't know how to calculate total return for a bond fund.
he was referring to spread widening which started in August. junk spreads went to widths that were unheard of outside a full blown recession at the time (and earlier this year.) they have contracted since as you and others have noticed...
best, FA

Total return charts are the only way to go with bond funds as they include reinvested dividends. Price only charts for bond funds don't *remotely* begin to paint an accurate picture. Don't mind me, just one of my pet peeves. I recall Gundlach saying on CNBC late last summer how junk bonds (JNK) were making 4 to 5 year lows. Nothing could have been further from the truth as he was just looking at a price only chart and completely ignoring dividends.

Not exactly. The first link in October 2015 he says junk bonds are at 4 year lows. REALLY WRONG! The second link from this January he says junk bonds are trading at levels below those seen during 2012. REALLY WRONG! I would have to look further but he also said something to the same effect late this summer. He says nothing about spreads but simply junk bonds. When I saw him on CNBC this summer he was using a chart of JNK. Gundlach likes to make news enhancing announcements. I hope there is a crash in junk bonds so he can be proven right about that many times prediction.
Edit: For the record, junk went into a steep decline in January and bottomed on 2/11. At its lowest point it hit levels not seen since 12/11/12. Junk bonds were never at 4 year lows at anytime. When he made his comments in early January of trading at levels below those seen during 2012 not even remotely close. To have been at levels below those seen in 2012 junk would have had to have declined another 12+% from its 2/11 lows.
http://citywireselector.com/news/gundlach-credit-concerns-and-what-happened-with-bill-gross/a847840
https://www.markettamer.com/blog/gundlach-on-the-feds-amazing-blunder

"a low tolerance for risk"
Ummm ... you might reflect on that conclusion in light of the positioning of my portfolio, which I publish annually. In the non-retirement portfolio, about 50% of my money is in equities and 50% in income-producing securities. Within the equity sleeve, 50% is international and within international more than 50% is a combination of small, emerging and frontier. Domestic is overweight small- to micro-cap which a distinct value pitch. I have no savings account (0.01% APR does nothing for me) but instead balance very conservative income-oriented investments (the aforementioned RPHYX) with quite aggressive ones.
It might be a bit misleading to point to one fund and generalize from it. I mean, really, why is substituting RPHYX and RPSIX for CDs and a savings account "risk averse"?
My self-description would be closer to this: "I will accept no risk unless I perceive a serious assymetry, in which the probable upside is substantially greater than the probable downside." One measure of the ability of a manager to achieve that goal is to look at a risk-return ratio over a meaningful period of time. My default is Sharpe over a full market cycle. The FMC orientation simply reflects the fact that I have better things to do than try to time my portfolio; I have neither the interest nor the discipline to pull that off. Some folks do, although the evidence suggests a far larger number simply thinks they do.
So, if you start with my premise - high risk-return ratio over meaningful periods - which small caps should I be looking at? When I screen for open, retail small cap funds - domestic, global, international - no-load or load-waived at Scottrade and sort by descending Sharpe, the top ones are:
1. Intrepid Endeavor, first by a lot. ARIVX is a near-clone in terms of risk-return but it doesn't have a full cycle record.
2. Westwood Mighty Mites
3. Homestead Small Cap
4. Pinnacle Value
5. Tributary Small Cap.
If you play with the risk-reward measure (Sortino, Martin, Ulcer Index) you get a slight shuffle of the top ten with the addition of Queens Road SCV and Royce Special.
I'm not enamored with the Royce or Gabelli organizations. Love Homestead's low minimum initial investment ($500), don't love the $1.2 billion size as much. Queens Road is very much worth a look. Tributary really would qualify as "in the shadows." And still the numbers point most consistently to ICMAX and the much-derided ARIVX.
I bet you're wondering why I buy and sell funds so rarely. Briefly, I go through this sort of pondering with every single one.
David