HFCSX Hennessy Focused Fund had a distribution of $22 on a reinvestment price of $61
Price before distribution was $83, so that's a distribution of over 25%.
I had a very small holding, so hadn't checked ahead of time --- but I'll be liquidating in 30 days.
They don't deserve to have my funds.
Who else has had enormous distributions?

Thanks for all of the positive feedback. I really appreciate it.
Rick, as a disclaimer, I am employed in the precious metals industry, but not on the marketing or sales side.
Gold has a place in portfolios if your believe that 1) the dollar will devalue, 2) inflation will rise, or 3) uncertainty is going to rise. For these reasons, gold has a low correlation to stocks. Gold has risen from $1,500 a year ago to $2,061 in August and then fallen to $1,858.
I usually own precious metals company stock and don't buy gold ETFs. I did buy gold earlier this year and sold when it crossed the $2,000 threshold as I believed it was a psychological ceiling. Gold related investments helped reduce the volatility in my portfolio. It is an emotional asset as some wise investors don't invest saying they don't know how to value it, and gold bugs saying it is the world's most reliable currency.
You may be familiar with the "All Weather" Permanent Portfolio created by Harry Brown in 1980's. It was made of four equal weighted assets of gold, cash, stocks, and long term treasuries. It's performance has worked well in some environments and not others.
I believe that the conditions exist for gold to be a small part of most investor's portfolios in the coming decades. In the short run, I don't know which direction it will take, and am monitoring it in case there is an opportunity to re-enter.
Be Safe and Enjoy the Holidays.

@wxman123 What your point is, your real point then, is that sacrificing human life in exchange for personal wealth is an acceptable outcome if you are more concerned about the "social impact" than the death rate as you say. Why not just come out and say that keeping businesses open is more important than death rates to you, that some people are expendable? Because to say having one of the lowest state death rates as Newsom does with California is "pretty dreadful overall" because you don't like that some businesses are closed means as much. The difference between a 50 person per 100,000 people death rate and a 100 person per 100,000 death rate is not meaningless to the 50 people who didn't die as a result or to the families of the 50 extra people who did die. Nor is having half the infection rate of another more laissez-faire state meaningless to those who didn't get infected or those who did.
So OK, if I misinterpreted what you were saying, the ethical implications are far worse from my perspective. So yes you did need to spell that out to me. Thank you for doing that. To just say well a lot of people are getting sick anyway so who cares what the infection or death rate is seems pretty cynical. The question is who should be sacrificed for the greater economic good, who are the expendable ones? You? Me? Maybe just the old and poor. It's worth it so bars can stay open.

@BenWP : Thank you for your thoughts.
My thought process says, everything works until it doesn't !
You mention value funds above. I happen to purchase small, medium, & LCV in equal amounts two or three weeks back. SCV seems to be working , better than 5% appreciation since purchase. I also own some TDF's , but not to the extent you do. I may add to 2015 or TDR fund to raise bond allocation. I hope Mr. Market doesn't have another (Dot Com ) per say blow out coming as many virtual company have popped up. Making money & burning through it are two different things !
As I've said before , different strokes for different folks.
Stay Safe, Derf

There are many wise and thoughtful contributions from several of the varsity team here on MFO. When I held one of the Fidelity Asset Manager funds way back when, then OAKBX, and then BRUFX, I believed (probably naïvely) that what I had were "all-weather" funds. The past few years have demonstrated that allocation funds work great when markets are "behaving" as they usually have. Interest rates and rates of inflation rose and fell with a certain regularity. Value stocks and growth stocks alternated with being the flavor of the year or two, but there was an alternation. Nowadays, interest rates remain far below historical levels and value securities can't find even hold-the-nose buyers. My thought is that the weather has changed so drastically that it's pointless to expect a balanced fund to thrive in this climate.
While I hold PTIAX and TMSRX in my taxable portfolio, what I expect from them is not that their managers hedge their stock holdings as a balanced fund manager might do, but that they will provide a steady stream of income or capital appreciation that does not depend on the performance of my stocks and equity funds. I have a small slice of RPGAX, but no other allocation fund in my taxable portfolio. As for my TIAA retirement account, I let Vanguard's retirement target fund managers decide what bonds to buy. The only decision I make is on the year (2025, 2030, etc.). Those mixed asset funds-of-funds represent approximately 40% of the portfolio, which is tilted farther towards equities than most 78-year-olds can tolerate. Not advice, just observations.

“The difficulty in finding value in bonds helps explain poor absolute performance of balanced funds, but it doesn't help explain relatively poor performance. All of OAKBX's peers face this same problem.”
Yes and No. Not all bonds are equal. I’m aware of no other balanced fund that relied(ies) so heavily on upper tier and longer dated bonds as OAKBX during its hey-day.. It doesn’t take a big commitment to AAA bonds with 15 or 20 year durations to pack a lot of hedging power - if you get it right. I’d argue that that’s a riskier proposition than hedging with short-term junk bonds - just by way of example. During the time I was with OAKBX management sounded distrustful of the junk and lower rated bond sector. They did begin to exit the AAA stuff - but in so doing weakened or discarded the method of hedging against equity losses they knew best.
DODBX, from what I can tell, utilizes the same components as their relatively tame DODIX (income fund) for its “bond” portion. That’s a much more docile approach to bonds. Yeah - I’m disappointed in my DODBX holding. But, unlike Oakmark I think, D & C has stuck to its stated and time-proven philosophy. Unfortunately, they were early (by years) in predicting the uptick in long-term rates which now appears to have begun. Their big stake in financials has now started to pay off (and the fund’s recent performance shows some improvement.) So, I’m comfortable continuing to hold DODBX.
Final thought - As a group balanced funds are a very unbalanced lot. :)

Laziness is not a virtue. :) - I’ve now taken the effort to Google the referenced column (November 2020 Mutual Fund Observer). I think in fairness to Ed I should post his exact words:
“ When I left Harris Associates in January of 2012, the Oakmark Equity and Income Fund had, on 12/31/2011, $18.9B in assets. Performance over the long-term had been above the relevant benchmarks. As of 10/31/2020, per Morningstar, the fund’s assets are at $7.2B, and performance has been lagging benchmarks for the last 1, 3, and 5 years.
What is the problem? Has my former colleague Clyde McGregor lost his touch? No, certainly not that I can see. The equity portion of the portfolio is a classic Harris Associates’ value portfolio, and it looks very interesting to me looking forward over a three to five-year time horizon.
There are two areas of issue. Please recognize that I am speaking about balanced funds, which is the class of investment I am most familiar with, having managed the same for more than twenty-five years at a national bank trust department as well as at Harris Associates. The first competitive issue is fees. When Fidelity’s Balanced Fund shows a 53-basis point expense ratio and Vanguard’s Wellington Fund shows a 25-basis point expense ratio (and the Vanguard Admiral share class drops that fee to 17 basis points). A 25 to 35 basis point fee disadvantage is a lot of baggage to overcome consistently in terms of its detrimental impact upon performance. If the fee disparity is larger, making up the differential becomes nigh on impossible. I will leave it to others to address the issue of the fee disadvantages relative to exchange traded funds.
The other area of disadvantage currently is fixed income as an asset class for a balanced portfolio. With rates where they are and where they are likely to be for the foreseeable future, it is almost impossible to add any value in the fixed income area without taking on extreme amounts of risk. Money market rates, when not negative, are running from zero to perhaps eight basis points. Maturities beyond two years are not compensating you for the risk you are taking on (if you are lucky, you can find 1% on a credit union’s three-year insured certificate of deposit).
I will leave aside the issue of value being out of favor as opposed to growth. Those of us who are value investors are prepared to wait through those periods of underperformance. That said, the goalposts for various asset classes have shifted. Small cap was equities with a market capitalization of $500M to $1B. Now, the range is extended up to $2.5B. And one must consider the extent to which other asset classes impinge on your allocation decisions. An article on the “Seeking Alpha” website was making an argument not too long ago that the better way to achieve portfolio diversification going forward was to pair an S&P 500 Index Fund with one of the publicly-traded C-Corporation private equity firms. It is an interesting question to think about.”
The End of Many Eras

Thanks for the pointer to the column. You can find a list of Ed Studzinski's pieces here, including his November post:
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2020/11/the-end-of-many-eras/
Your memory is perfect, right month, and 3/3 on his reasons. (More on that below.) I appreciate your additional thoughts about the quality of bonds used (Ed also commented on this in his column, saying that one can't add value without adding excessive risk). Interesting observation about using the energy sector.
Value vs. growth does seem to be a major factor. I looked at all 50%-70% allocation funds at M*. Of the 40 distinct funds with value portfolios, the number in the top half over the past five or three years can be counted on two hands. Of the 38 with star ratings, just 5 manage even four stars, with more having two stars than three. The four star fund people will recognize is BRUFX.
Cost would seem to be a smaller factor, though it could be why DODBX retains three stars. The difficulty in finding value in bonds helps explain poor absolute performance of balanced funds, but it doesn't help explain relatively poor performance. All of OAKBX's peers face this same problem.
Apparently value vs. growth has more of an impact on funds in this category than I suspected.

@msf : Thanks for chiming in. After posting I also brought up their chart from inception.
Looked to me like they had a shot in the arm , which probably skewed over all performance. When I looked at holdings it was easy to see they were holding some BIG gainers !
Still if one is into L/S funds , take a look. Plus I'll mention ER is in the 2% range & M* gives it 5*, for what that's worth.
Stay Safe, Derf

I'm sounding like a broken record here, but 2020 was an unusual year. Take a look at its performance since inception through 2019 instead. Over the 7¾ years, it achieved an annualized return of 5.156% vs its peers' 3.936%. Still impressive, but far from the 7% advantage you're seeing to date.
Inception to Dec 31, 2019 chart. IMHO this chart really puts this fund into perspective.
Irrespective of the fact that most of the figures you gave are long term (multi-year) results, what they're really showing you is short term performance. That's because the past year has so distorted the longer term averages. So the next question is why did it do so well on a relative basis this year?
Look at its portfolio (again in the context of the 2020 market). It's nearly off the scale on the growth side. (YTD, VIGAX has returned 36.89% vs. 16.13% for VFINX.) Was this a matter of skill, that the management took the fund to the right part of the market at the right time, or was it luck? The fund has always been growth leaning (check its portfolio history). Its peers are a much tamer group (look at the "Value and Growth Measures" section of the M* portfolio page for the fund.)
I tend to look just as much at year by year performance as cumulative performance. Especially this year, one good year can skew the numbers. Likewise, while growth has tended to do better than value or blend for a long time, it hasn't had a year like this since the dot-com bubble burst.
https://www.longtermtrends.net/growth-stocks-vs-value-stocks/
Difference in annual returns of growth and value (from Vanguard)

Not for me. While it certainly beats the britches off it's category it trails the S&P 500 by nearly an equal gap. I guess it all depends on what you're after or trying to achieve.

RLSFX I received annual report, RiverPark, this morning & was shocked on the performance of this fund ! Since inception it has kicked it's competition to the curb !
As per M*
12Comparison of Change in the Value of a $10,000 Investment in the RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity Fund,Retail Class Shares, versus the S&P 500 TR Index and the Morningstar Long/Short Equity CategoryAVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL RETURNS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2020One Year ReturnAnnualized 3 Year ReturnAnnualized 5 Year ReturnAnnualized 10 Year ReturnAnnualized Inception to Date*Institutional Class Shares47.71%19.33%15.81%11.21%10.38%Retail Class Shares47.47%19.12%15.58%11.04%10.22%S&P 500 TR Index15.15%12.28%14.15%13.74%13.40%Morningstar Long/Short Equity Category1.78%1.90%3.25%3.37%3.20%
The important #'s RSLFX 10.38 VS category ave. 3.20 since incepetion.
Stay Safe, Derf

Both of you are mincing words to avoid my point and to support your brethren. The fact is that Mark DIRECTLY blamed Florida's "moronic" governor for the death of his friends in Florida who were healthcare workers. He wrote: "I have lost friends in FL because of the moronic way the governor and money grubbing crowd in that state have chosen to deal with Covid." We can debate how bad California has done on Covid in light of its policies (even "morons" know that if you lock everything down you will reduce covid) but the FACT is that many healthcare workers in California still died even with "smart" policy. It's simply not a fair debate if you ignore the social impact of lockdowns. That's where reasonable people can disagree and it is a fair point of debate. Mark also said on the heels of MSF's post softening Cuomo's blame for the nursing home fiasco that Cuomo, unlike DeSantis "did as the scientific and medical advisors suggested." This is also untrue. Cuomo himself did not defend his decision based on science. He essentially though falsely said he followed Trump's CDC guidance (according to PolitiFact https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/13/andrew-cuomo/new-yorks-nursing-home-policy-was-not-line-cdc/) Just as clearly, Cuomo did not follow the "science." The day after Cuomo issued his directive the AMDA responded that it was "over-reaching, not consistent with science, unenforceable, and beyond all, not in the least consistent with patient safety principles." https://paltc.org/sites/default/files/Statement on the March 25 NYSDOH Advisory.pdf

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/vanguard-makes-rare-retreat-price-135614153.html
Derf

Thanks Lewis, you got to this before me. Though perhaps I can add a little context and data.
Here's a news report from KCRA Sacramento. This or something like it could be the source of this misinformation on rates. The headline is correct, but the body of the report (regarding rates) isn't.
Study: California leads in health care worker COVID-19 infections

A report release in September by National Nurses United, the country's largest nurses union, found that California is leading in COVID-19 infection rates amongst health care workers nationwide. The Golden State reported 35,525 infection cases, followed by Georgia at 17,317, then Florida at 16,380. California ranks third in overall health care worker deaths, behind New York and New Jersey.

Anyone reading that and having at least a passing familiarity with US states would realize that California couldn't have the highest infection rate. The Peach State's population is 1/4 that of California, making its infection rate roughly twice as high.
From the study's press release, echoing what you wrote about quality of the data:

Only 15 states are providing infection numbers for all health care workers on a daily, semiweekly, or weekly basis. In May, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began requiring nursing homes to provide Covid-related health care worker infection and mortality data, which is publicly available from CMS. For the hospital industry, however, data collection on health care worker infections and deaths has been woefully inadequate.

The full report notes that just 16 states provide infection figures for all health care workers regardless of frequency. Table 6 there is labeled "Covid-19 Health Care Worker Infection Rates". In actuality, it gives the number of health care worker infections as a percentage of total infections. California has the 2nd lowest rate of the 16 states.
That comes with a qualification that could easily apply to the entire report: "Some variation among the states may be due to more aggressive testing of health care workers in some areas."

@Wxman123

but conveniently ignore that Gavin Newsome (another big science guy, right) has presided over the state with the worst covid record amongst healthcare workers (and pretty dreadful overall).

False, on both counts: First, there isn't good data on healthcare workers:
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#health-care-personnel

Data were collected from 10,856,748 people, but healthcare personnel status was only available for 2,154,525 (19.85%) people.
For the 254,581 cases of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel, death status was only available for 189,845 (74.57%).

But more important, California's overall infection rate--3,391 per 100,000 people--and death rate--50 per 100,000 people--are among the best in the nation: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_deathsper100k
Florida's infection rate is 4,886 per 100,000 people and its death rate is 90 per 100,000 people.

@wxman123 - I'm done arguing with you and from now on I'm just going to let you be wrong.
Furthermore you said "Piling on is just an expression of your political views, IMO." Your opinion couldn't be further from the truth. What matters to me is the knowledge and the opinions of the scientific and medical experts in the field. I could care less about the politics as I have yet to meet a virus that is politically inclined. The difference between DeSantis and Cuomo is that DeSantis did everything that 45 and his political/money backers told him to do in managing this pandemic/virus while Cuomo did as the scientific and medical advisors suggested. Was some of it wrong? Possibly but that's how science works and this was a new virus.
The same lunacy is now being played out in MN and the Dakota's where the Dakota governors bowed to 45 and now have some of the highest infection and death rates in the nation. Gov. Walz of MN who followed the advice of the science and medical experts is being skewered by those two governors and their MN republican allies while meanwhile those same two governors are sending their covid patients to MN for treatment because their hospitals are full.

As long as the experts agree with you. You blamed the deaths of your alleged Florida-based healthcare friends directly on a "moronic" governor but conveniently ignore that Gavin Newsome (another big science guy, right) has presided over the state with the worst covid record amongst healthcare workers (and pretty dreadful overall). Did he kill his state's healthcare workers too? If you don't think you wear your politics on your sleeve, you are very badly mistaken. I'd bet my life you hate Trump and voted for Biden.
You have found fault with everything Trump and the R's have done (even operation warp speed) and defended Cuomo and the D's (even his criminal nursing home directive). I can find "smart guy" fact checkers and so-called researchers who will refute all of your "smart guys" with their version of "facts." So what? When I asked YOU to tell me a covid plan that's been successful all I heard was crickets. It is YOU who has used covid to make a political point no matter how artfully written. Fine if you don't respond, I could care less.

@wxman123 - I'm done arguing with you and from now on I'm just going to let you be wrong.
Furthermore you said "Piling on is just an expression of your political views, IMO." Your opinion couldn't be further from the truth. What matters to me is the knowledge and the opinions of the scientific and medical experts in the field. I could care less about the politics as I have yet to meet a virus that is politically inclined. The difference between DeSantis and Cuomo is that DeSantis did everything that 45 and his political/money backers told him to do in managing this pandemic/virus while Cuomo did as the scientific and medical advisors suggested. Was some of it wrong? Possibly but that's how science works and this was a new virus.
The same lunacy is now being played out in MN and the Dakota's where the Dakota governors bowed to 45 and now have some of the highest infection and death rates in the nation. Gov. Walz of MN who followed the advice of the science and medical experts is being skewered by those two governors and their MN republican allies while meanwhile those same two governors are sending their covid patients to MN for treatment because their hospitals are full.

Since it's my question and I was asking what changed at Oakmark while you commented and continue to comment on M*'s analyst (prospective) ratings, you are not addressing my question. Oakmark used to have 4-5* funds; they're now all 1-2*. As you wrote yourself, those are objective ratings. The question, again, is what changed at Oakmark to explain this objective decline?
I'll grant you that you did understand the question but chose to use it as an opportunity to criticize M* (an easy task) rather than answer the question. I had been trying to be more diplomatic.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/773757/000119312520311432/d33073d497.htm
Columbia Multi-Asset Income Fund
Columbia Pacific/Asia Fund
497 1 d33073d497.htm COLUMBIA FUNDS SERIES TRUST I
Supplement dated December 7, 2020
to the Prospectuses, Summary Prospectuses and Statement of Additional Information (SAI), each as supplemented (as applicable), of the following Funds (each a Fund and together the Funds):
Fund Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI Dated
Columbia Funds Series Trust I
Columbia Multi-Asset Income Fund----Prospectus and Summary Prospectus: 9/1/2020; SAI: 12/1/2020
Columbia Pacific/Asia Fund-----------Prospectus and Summary Prospectus: 8/1/2020; SAI: 12/1/2020
The Board of Trustees of the Funds has approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination (the Plan) pursuant to which the Funds will be liquidated and terminated.
Effective at the open of business on January 11, 2021, the Funds will no longer be open to new investors. Shareholders who opened and funded an account with the Funds as of the open of business on this date (including accounts once funded that subsequently reached a zero balance) may continue to make additional purchases of Fund shares, including purchases by an existing retirement plan that has a plan-level or omnibus account with the Transfer Agent or other omnibus accounts relating to new or existing participants seeking to invest in the Funds. Effective January 11, 2021, any applicable contingent deferred sales charges will be waived on redemptions and exchanges out of the Funds.
Under the terms of the Plan, it is anticipated that the Funds will be liquidated on or about February 5, 2021 (the Liquidation Date) at which time the Funds' shareholders will receive a liquidating distribution in an amount equal to the net asset value of their Fund shares. For federal income tax purposes, the liquidation of the Funds will be treated as a redemption of Fund shares and may cause shareholders to recognize a gain or loss and pay taxes if the liquidated shares are held in a taxable account. You should consult with your own tax advisor about the particular tax consequences to you of the Funds' liquidation. Shareholders of the Funds may redeem their investments in the Funds or exchange their Fund shares for shares of another Columbia Fund at any time prior to the Liquidation Date (as described in the next paragraph). If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instructions prior to the Liquidation Date, your shares will be automatically liquidated on the Liquidation Date.
As of the close of business on the business day preceding the Liquidation Date, the Funds will no longer accept any orders for the purchase of or exchange for shares of the Funds. Orders for the purchase of or exchange for shares of the Funds may, in the Funds' discretion, be rejected prior to the Liquidation Date, including for operational reasons relating to the anticipated liquidation of the Fund.
During the period prior to the Liquidation Date, the Funds' investment manager, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (the Investment Manager), may depart from the Fund’s stated investment objectives and strategies to reduce the amount of portfolio securities and hold more cash or cash equivalents to liquidate the Funds' assets in a manner that the Investment Manager believes to be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. Shareholders remaining in the Funds may bear increased transaction fees incurred in connection with the disposition of the Funds' portfolio holdings. Any such transaction costs would reduce any distributable net capital gains.
Shareholders who hold their Fund shares through a retirement plan or account (such as a 401(k) plan or individual retirement account) and who receive a distribution of liquidation proceeds will be subject to taxes and, if under 59½ years of age, applicable early withdrawal penalties, unless the distribution proceeds are reinvested as a rollover in an eligible retirement plan or account within 60 days after the proceeds are received.
The Funds will seek to pay out all distributable net income and net capital gains prior to the Liquidation Date. Shareholders will receive liquidation proceeds as soon as practicable after the Liquidation Date.
Shareholders should retain this Supplement for future reference.