BAIRD MUTUAL FUNDS (No update yet, 10-25-15)
http://www.bairdfunds.com/distribution-information
BAIRD UPDATE AS of 11-08-2015
http://content.rwbaird.com/BairdFunds/PDF/Estimated-Capital-Gains-10-31-15.pdf
FMI MUTUAL FUNDS (No update yet, 10-25-15)
http://www.fiduciarymgt.com/fmifunds/general-fund-links/mutual-fund-tax-information/
GOODHAVEN
http://www.goodhavenfunds.com/media/pdfs/GOODX_2015_Estimated_Distributions.pdf
Note to The Shadow (Original Poster)
DIAMOND HILL:
Link for Diamond Hill has changed. It is now:
http://www.diamond-hill.com/wp-content/uploads/DHF-year-to-date-capital-gains-as-of-9-30-15.pdf | (i.e., End of Sep 2015)

This is what happens if you initially fail to check the reinvest box. Last December 5 I bought $9000 worth of PDI. Like a dope I did not reinvest for three months, until April. Have been auto-reinvesting since then, per usual. Current total cost is $9400 approx and current value is $8500, a loss of -9.5% approx. I do not know what 'distributions' I received Dec-April but I bet it was not $900, much less over. I have not crunched all the numbers from PDI to ensure that my Merrill accounting is accurate. (I probably will be sticking solely with PONDX instead going forward, and bail out of PDI when it breaks even. I have made money on it in the past; it is just this one 11mo partial-mistake period that irks so.)

I've found I have to be careful using M* charts with regard to cef's. When you bring up a chart on an oef (e.g., PIMIX in Bee's post above) and then add a cef to compare, the chart shows total return for the cef on nav, not on price. The 'Performance' pages show both the return on price and return on nav, so that's typically where I go to do comparisons between oef's and cef's.
Example to show that doing the charting as above is about cef nav, not price: if you chart PIMIX today for 1y and then add PDI, PDI's total return shows as +4.59%. Go to the Performance page, and the return on nav is shown as 4.59%, but the return on price has been +7.57%.
Best, AJ

@InformalEconomist
Subscribers have until 10/30 (had until 10/30 when submitted their subscriptions) to act upon their allotment so I suspect more people are in the pipeline to do so. I transferred my money in on 10/20, but had thoughts about waiting until the second week to do so.
Just thought the Stalwarts would have taken more in than $22M after a month's time.

One more data point on PDI:

From the Grandeur Peak website: total net assets of GPMCX were $14.9 million as of 10-23-2015.
($85 million in allocation was requested, but some folks got a haircut.)

Ha. Most of the screaming has been mine about PDI performance the last year or so.

M* does a nice job of charting total return. If you look at purely a price chart (i.e. yahoofinance) the share price since 6/30/14 has dropped over 10%:

But during that time an investor would have collected lots dividends and this table lists both daily share price, dividends and more importantly price adjusted for dividends and splits:

M* charts show this dynamically as if an investor reinvested dividends over the same time frame. I include it's mutual fund cousin (PONDX) for comparison.

Looks like you are up 6% over this time frame you are "screaming" about. Not too shabby @davidmoran.
I have often wondered if PDI would make a good alternative to an income annuity. It presently pays out over 8% and most likely will always have a death benefit (think of the share price as the death benefit). Also, I believe cefs are inherited with the same stepped up basis as stocks making them the inherited cost basis tax free.

Ironically, both Stalwart funds took in a total of $22M since September 1; while the Global Micro Cap Fund took in $85 in two weeks.

But wait--- there are even more "as of 9/30/2015" choices!
http://www.riverparkfunds.com/downloads/FactSheet/RiverPark_Strategic-Income-Fund_Fact-Sheet.pdf (see the pie)
vs.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=RSIVX&region=usa&culture=en_US
8% cash, or 20% cash-- you decide.
B= 32%, or 50.5?-- you decide.
<B= 23%, or 14.4%-- you decide.
Not rated? 12%, or 8.5%-- you decide.
'cause hell if I can tell you which figures are the correct ones...... whatever, I guess......

To Bob C.
While it may be good marketing to project to 105 yr life expectancy, take a look at your client. Is she/he pudgy, exercising, on a Mediterranean diet?
The current generation's life expectancy is less than their parents. A logical government policy wouldn't expend taxpayer money to ensure more time on SS or Medicare.
Why do I now feel this urge to re-read Ayn Rand?

WTF are they doing?
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/257606-house-tees-up-conservative-plans-to-raise-the-debt-limit
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/257836-gop-braces-for-clean-debt-vote
I don't understand. I don't understand any of these people. Do they not understand the math on this?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-22/presenting-americas-new-debt-ceiling-19600000000000

"A failure by Washington leaders to raise the federal debt ceiling by next month could test whether new regulations have made money market mutual funds more robust. ...With $2.7 trillion in assets, money funds play a key role in the financial system as purchasers of corporate and government debt used to fund short-term operations. Some funds' managers were rattled when past debt showdowns cast doubt on the payment schedules of U.S. Treasury securities they held, though investors ultimately stayed with the funds."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/22/us-usa-funds-debtceiling-idUSKCN0SG2LQ20151022

i like this date: 6/31/15 :)
today was quite volatile for VRX as well...

Per M*, on 6/31/15 VRX is 29% of SEQUX portfolio. 29% x a drop of 20% in the stock equates to about a 5.8% drop in the fund.
The % of VRX in the portfolio is likely less than the 29% reported on 6/31/15 since the stocks price dropped significantly in the last few months even before yesterday. So yeah, the 4.3% in SEQUX drop yesterday can certainly be attributed to VRX. Makes sense.

Per their 6/30/15 commentary at http://www.sequoiafund.com/FundComm.pdf , Valeant shouldn't hurt them as much as it seems to be doing. Granted they have some other losers, too.

Umm ... Re "purchased about a year ago". I may have missed that tidbit in your caption earlier.
If, as it sounds, the Roth itself was opened only a year ago, I'd wonder why one would invest a new Roth IRA in bonds in the first place?
Just a personal observation, but generally speaking a Roth should be positioned for growth. Bonds are currently yielding very low historical returns. The 10-year Treasury yields about 2%. Subtract management fees and one can only expect a 1-2% return on investment going forward (somewhat more with lower rated bonds).
There are, however, a few reasons for holding bonds in a Roth IRA.
--- #1 Age
--- #2 Seeking to protect outsized gains already earned inside a Roth that was originally invested in undervalued assets
--- #3 Estate planning
--- #4 As a smaller portion of a broad-based investment approach
--- #5 Tactically - while awaiting an expected buying opportunity later after an anticipated equity correction
(This last one, however, is a bit suspect because markets are very difficult to predict.)
In addition to the above, some individuals are simply uncomfortable taking risks in the markets and don't tolerate wide fluctuations in value very well. For those investors, conservative multi-asset income funds may be the right choice. As the prior discussion illuminates, RVSIX is hardly multi-asset in composition.

If today's college graduates live to age 105 or 110, I don't see working to age 75 as a bad thing, assuming health continues to improve as it has over the last 50 years. There have always been a percentage of people who must work past what they would like to be their retirement age because of financial issues. That is not going to change.

There are two aspects missing - 1. will there be jobs for under 75 y/o and 2. if there is a job will an employer higher them? I don't think there will be, especially when you take into account automation, artificial intelligence and outsourcing of jobs. I'm sure there are many 63 y/o today who would like a job but can't get one.

Life expectancy when Social Security was started was about 58 for men and 62 for women. The government figured they would not have to provide many folks with benefits, since most were expected to die before age 65. Now it is 76 and 81. And that is the average, which means many are expected to live much longer. We run our lifetime income projections to age 100 and are considering using longer numbers for our younger clients. Very few of our clients stop their lives and sit in a rocking chair at age 65. Many work because they want to...they like what they do, they own a business. Many retire from their main job and take a part-time job, often what they call a 'fun' job. There are a lot of folks who are unable to retire financially because of various circumstances. The definition of retirement is vastly different from today than it was for our grandparents. If today's college graduates live to age 105 or 110, I don't see working to age 75 as a bad thing, assuming health continues to improve as it has over the last 50 years. There have always been a percentage of people who must work past what they would like to be their retirement age because of financial issues. That is not going to change.