Interval-funds are not listed, can be bought any tine, but redemptions are limited in amounts to quarterly, semi-annual or annual windows. There are about 70 such funds now. A good analogy is to "roach-motels". A filing has been made for ARK Venture Fund.
Interval-funds try to address some issues related to mutual funds/OEFs (constant inflows/outflows), ETFs (liquid wrapper for some illiquid assets) and CEFs (premiums/discounts).
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1080000/ark-invest-turns-to-an-innovative-fund-structure
SEC/Edgar https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1905088/000110465922011382/tm225314d1_n2.htm

Luckily, ETFs cannot have classes. But they can come up with more ETFs, also ETNs, CEFs, if they want (I have not heard of such plans).
But some American Funds mutual funds (OEFs) have one-and-a-half dozen or more classes. It was a laugh when they launched the F-classes as their attempt to simplify the class-madness but that just added 6 more classes (F1, F2, F3, 529F1, 529F2, 529F3).

I assume you mean this? https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/61628/000110465911058419/a11-27145_1def14a.htm
It seems like they want to leave Minnesota--not physically but legally--and reincorporate or reorganize in Delaware. American corporations love Delaware because of its lax pro-business regulations. A tiny state, that has probably the most incorporations in the nation.
Far more important is the second proposal, that will change the funds' investment restrictions, making them much more lax, giving the funds' more flexibility, which is obviously a double-edged sword. These changes start on page 14, and include shifts in stock concentration, industry concentration limits, the ability to hedge with options or short sales and invest in real estate. It's hard to say how many of these options the funds will avail themselves of, but the new rules in this filing would allow them to do things very differently from what they currently are doing.

M* article from Auguat, 2021, https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1056134/capital-groups-fashionably-late-entry-to-the-etf-party
"Capital Group, the parent of American Funds, expects to introduce its first suite of exchange-traded funds early next year. According to preliminary prospectus filings on Aug. 24, 2021, the firm will launch six actively managed, transparent ETFs in the latter half of 2022's first quarter: fixed-income strategy Capital Group Core Plus Income CGCP; U.S.-centric equity mandates Capital Group Growth CGGR, Capital Group Core Equity CGUS, and Capital Group Dividend Value CGDV; and international/global equity strategies Capital Group Global Growth Equity CGGO and Capital Group International Focus CGXU....."

I received a thick booklet from Mairs & Power asking me, a shareholder in two of their funds, for a proxy vote approving a proposed reorganization from its present Trust status to something else. In 83 pages of print the details of the Something Else are not made explicit. I phoned the supplied number for more info and got someone who seemed to sincerely believe she was giving me useful information by robotically reading sentences from the booklet I had already read. I asked her if she, like me, also did not understand what was being voted upon. Her answer was to recite the names of the three Mairs & Power funds. I thanked her for her time and called the shareholder phone number instead. I got a polite but ignorant person who kept putting me on hold while she asked her supervisor for information, After 15 minutes of brief conversation, separated by 3 minute holds accompanied by music that was not annoying, I was advised to phone the Proxy info number.
Does anyone here understand what is actually being proposed by M&P? I understand that the proposition is to switch to a "multiple series trust platform" and I understand in principal what that is, but no details are given. Part of the murkiness of the proposal is due to what seems to me to be poor English usage, particular the use of the word "series" as a plural without an article ("series" instead of " a series" for instance) and "reorganizations" in place of "reorganization" in a situation where one event of reorganization is proposed. An example: " If the reorganizations (as described below) are completed, the Target Funds would become series of a multiple series trust platform comprised of the Target Funds and other third-party funds". No one I asked on the phone could tell me what that meant or what the third-party funds would be. To add to the confusion, on another page each of the three M&P funds is described as being a "series". What?
Does anyone in this forum know the details of what is being proposed? And if so would you be so kind as to explain them to this simple-minded investor? Thank you in advance.

Hi @yogibearbull
This chart is a just for the "heck of it", that I set several years ago for my viewing pleasure. Tracking the yield, versus pricing performance; so we're looking at the percentage change in yield rate over period "x". This particular chart is YTD.
Note: yields at various times may be viewed "hovering" on the chart lines, and the time frame may be changed from the 36 days shown below the chart.
30 year - 1 year rate of yield change

Yahoo data shows flattening to 38 bps,
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$UST10Y-$UST2Y&p=D&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id=p30770457149

I have noticed several things about Yahoo Finance (YF) data:
1. Data-feed errors are generally not fixed. This I have noticed at other sites too. Reason probably is that it is pointless to correct data-feed errors manually as the next data-feed refresh may just restore those. Fund families whose data are involved don't care - this I KNOW from my prior emails to YF and fund families.
2. Yahoo Finance does process some of its data. Adjusted-prices is something unique to Yahoo Finance (and Stockcharts, etc). Not everyone is sold on this concept (others do Growth-of-10K). Another area is Treasury rates ^TNX, ^TYX, etc where YF doesn't follow the typical 10x rate scale convention (CBOE, Stockcharts, etc) and that leads to some fantastic transient error in that data at YF on some afternoons.
3. I also suspect that in adjusted-price calculations, YF rounds results to 2 decimals in EACH step. This rounding error then propagates and becomes noticeable for periods larger than 10 years. Conceptually, the results from adjusted-prices and Growth-of-10K should be closer to what they actually are.
Under Data Disclaimer, Yahoo Finance provides multiple sources of its data.
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/finance-for-web/SLN2310.html?locale=en_US
"US quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE American when available from Nasdaq Last Sale and if not available it will appear delayed from the consolidated tape. See delay times for other exchanges below. Quotes are updated automatically but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity.
Financial statements, valuation ratios, market cap and shares outstanding data provided by Morningstar.
Company profile data provided by S&P Global Market Intelligence.
US equities and global index historical data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc.
International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar.
Analyst estimates, earnings, corporate, economic events, non-US IPO, and insider transactions data provided by Refinitiv*.
Top institutional and mutual fund holders provided by Vickers-stock.com.
SEC Filings and US IPO data is provided by EDGAR Online, a division of Donnelley Financial LLC.
Sustainability data provided by Sustainalytics and Morningstar.
Upgrades and downgrades provided by Benzinga.
Corporate governance scores provided by Institutional Shareholder Services."

Given that M* provides a figure for FGMNX's 2021 performance and Yahoo reports N/A, perhaps it is how Yahoo transcribes numbers and not M*'s data that is the problem? Or perhaps Yahoo calculates its own figures (e.g. adjusted closing prices) from data provided by M* and it just doesn't know how to program accurate financial calculations?
Then there's FGMNX's YTD performance as of now (Feb 22, 2022 close). The authoritative figure from Fidelity is -2.42%. The M* figure on the fund's quote page is -2.42%. Yahoo's fund summary page reports -2.43%.
One of these is not like the others.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312522048733/d293939d485apos.htm
Excerpt:
Principal Investment Strategies
The Fund’s investment team employs a fundamental investment process to construct a diversified portfolio of securities of undervalued, primarily non-US small companies. The team seeks to invest in what the team considers to be high quality, undervalued companies with strong balance sheets and shareholder-oriented management teams.
The team’s investment process focuses on four key characteristics:
■Undervaluation—Determining the intrinsic value of a business is the heart of the team’s research process. The team believes that intrinsic value represents the amount that a buyer would pay to own a company’s future cash flows. The team seeks to invest at a significant discount to its estimate of the intrinsic value of a business.
■Business Quality—The team seeks to invest in companies with histories of generating strong free cash flow, improving returns on capital and strong competitive positions in their industries.
■Financial Strength—The team believes that investing in companies with strong balance sheets helps to reduce the potential for capital risk and provides company management the ability to build value when attractive opportunities are available.
■Shareholder-Oriented Management—The team’s research process attempts to identify management teams with a history of building value for shareholders.

Thanks to @hank here. Great stuff. Will ANYONE who is in charge, ANYWHERE actually pay attention to this? We all already know, eh?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1558107/000139834422003723/fp0073523_497.htm
497 1 fp0073523_497.htm
ALPS SERIES TRUST
Seven Canyons World Innovators Fund and
Seven Canyons Strategic Global Fund
Supplement dated February 22, 2022
to the Funds’ Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
dated January 28, 2022
Josh Stewart, one of the Portfolio Managers of the Seven Canyons Strategic Global Fund and Seven Canyons World Innovators Fund, (the “Funds”), has announced his intention to leave the Funds on or before June 30, 2022.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

Prospectus for both funds:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312522048212/d473071d497.htm

Beating a dead horse, and yet it continues to kick.
I used to have an individual 401(k) with TRP, but closed it three years ago. Really, really closed it - informed TRP that I was terminating the plan, filed a final 5500 with the IRS.
Got a mailing last week saying that I had to file papers restating the plan. This is something that happens every few years for plans that are open. Not plans that are closed, terminated, kaput.
Called TRP (with the now typical 20 minute hold). They insisted that while I had zeroed out the account, the plan was still open. I asked how I could now terminate the plan. I was told I didn't have to do anything, I could just leave the plan dormant. Alternatively, TRP did have a way to formally close the plan - please wait while we put you on hold.
When the rep came back, I was told that, sure enough, my plan really was closed. But that happened some time ago and she had to look into the records. (What was she looking at up to that point?)
That still left me having received legal paperwork for a plan that was terminated years ago. What next? 5498s for IRAs that were closed out a decade ago? 1099s showing zero income?
It appears you can check out any time you like (with a lot of effort) but you can never leave.

We've seen something similar before. Several years ago two funds in another fund family mispricing securities. When the prices were corrected, the funds suffered one day drops of 44.0% and 69.4%.
That mispricing was not done by tweaking computer models as here. Rather, according to the SEC charge the mispricing was aided and abetted by the independent pricing company. Of course the charge included fraud and lack of transparency. Oh, and insider trading.
JR suggests that in order to pull something like this off, the fund has to be investing in esoteric, exotic instruments, otherwise one could just read off market prices. A security doesn't have to be exotic to be thinly traded. The other funds invested in junk munis. Not your run of the mill vanilla bonds, but not exactly esoteric either.
WSJ, 2011, Mutual Funds' Muni-Debt Prices Are Questioned
He also says that this could not happen in a fund company with compliance officers and supervisors. Not necessarily. They could be complicit. With these two funds, not only did the SEC charge the CEO and founder, but also the COO, the general counsel, the senior VP of trading, the treasurer, three independent directors and an associated director.
The upshot? The CEO retained that position until he handed it over to his son in 2013. He remains chairman. He's still managing the fund family's original fund. Five years after the charges were filed, the SEC told the parties not to do it again ("cease and desist") and fined the fund family and the CEO a joint amount of $3.5M. Other participants were each fined a lesser amount of $95K or $25K.
The CEO was William J. Nasgovitz. The funds were Heartland High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund and Heartland Short Duration High-Yield Municipal Fund. Given that the board did nothing and allowed Nasgovitz to retain his position for two decades, I will never invest in a Heartland fund.
SEC press release detailing charges
SEC complaint
Paragraph summary of SEC administrative action with link to SEC doc
From MFO's briefly noted:

As part of Heartland Advisors’ succession plan, founder William (“Bill”) J. Nasgovitz intends to transfer a controlling interest in Heartland Advisors to Will Nasgovitz, the Chief Executive Officer of Heartland Advisors, in 2022. The elder Mr. Nasgovitz launched the firm, and the Heartland Value Fund, in 1984.

https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2022/01/briefly-noted-63/

As of about 10 AM CT, major averages are below/at/near late-January lows. Only R2000/IWM is well above (it had been beaten down quite badly already). Is this the "flush" that the current Barron's mentioned? Stay tuned.
https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=$SPX&compare=$COMPQ,$INDU,$TRAN,IWM&id=p74263540530

For information on M* Interactive Charts, check out this link. Basically, they work with NAVs and work fine for mutual funds/OEFs and ETFs, but not for CEFs (unless one is looking into CEF NAVs, not prices).
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/256/interactive-charts-newer

Putin is into 2 "independent" Ukraine regions for "peacekeeping" and the world is reacting with limited sanctions. This is a start of something bad.
Futures started out deep in red Monday evening but started turning around 1:30 AM CT.

Not a big Zweig fan. But this one’s pretty good - provided the link pulls it up. I’ve found I can sometimes access a complete article on the first try - but that repeated attempts often fail. Published in the Wall Street Journal February 19, 2022 (but extracted elsewhere for posting). Note: Contains some discussion of John Hussman and HSGFX.
“ Don’t look at me. … That’s just about every investor’s motto when something goes wrong. In the old days, you could blame your stockbroker or fund manager for losing your money. Now that your stockbroker is your phone and your fund manager is an index, it’s a lot harder to point your finger at somebody else.”
https://www.livemint.com/market/stock-market-news/stock-market-got-you-worried-write-a-d-day-note-11645261228704.html

Early Monday evening Dow futures are off more than 400 points (about 1.4%). S&P futures are off 1.6% , NASDAQ futures down 2.25%. Gold well above $1900 at the moment, it’s highest level in a year. Asia’s down big of course. Bonds gaining. U.S. 10 Year treasury now at 1.87% - just slightly ahead of the 5 year (1.77%).
Rate inversion coming?
Still too early to dip in equities?
Tuesday may be a day only Hussman could love.