From the Fidelity link:

For example, let's say a CEF is 95% invested in one security, with the other 5% sitting in cash. That security was purchased at $100, is now worth $110, and the portfolio manager believes it is worth $120. The manager could sell some of the security to pay the distribution, which would then be attributed to a capital gain, in the distribution estimate. Or the fund could meet its distribution commitment from the 5% of cash it has, but the distribution would be attributed to return of capital.

If a CEF had 95% invested in one security, it would cease to be a CEF and be in violation of the Investment Company Act. And if it is holding significant cash to return capital, the cash could act as a drag on its investment strategy. Moreover, excluding muni ones, many CEFs are bought for their income potential in tax deferred IRA or free Roth IRAs, so the idea of saving investors taxes usually isn't foremost in managers' or investors' minds. In other words, I think this isn't a particularly realistic example of a "constructive return of capital." The pass-through example for MLPs in CEFs is legitimate. Mostly, I think return of capital is a means to deceive investors, although purchased at a discount it has a value.

On Thursday, April 15th, we will host two webinars about the MFO Premium search tool site.

The site helps individual investors and financial advisers 1) sort through the vast number of funds available today based on criteria important to them, 2) maintain candidate lists of promising funds to conduct further due diligence on, and 3) monitor risk and return performance of their current portfolios.

Since our last webinar in January, which featured my colleague Lynn Bolin, the site has experienced several upgrades, including:

• Redesigned MultiSearch user interface


• Dashboard of Launch Alerts tool


• Saved Searches feature in MultiSearch


• Expanded Watchlists and Portfolios


• Jump Scroll, Plus Search, and Exclude Category features in MultiSearch

The morning session will be at 11 am Pacific time (2pm Eastern). The afternoon at 2pm Pacific time (5pm Eastern). The webinars will be enabled by Zoom. You are welcome to register for both webinars.

Please use the following links to register for the morning session or afternoon session. Each will last nominally 1 hour, including questions.

Material covered in previous webinar can be found here.

Hope to you can join us again on the call. If you have any topics you'd like discussed, or general questions, happy to answer promptly via email ([email protected]) or scheduled call.

When Guinness/Atkinson converted their two dividend builder mutual funds to ETFs, they picked two symbols for their new SmartETFs: ADIV and DIVS.
ADIV had not been previously used, but DIVS had been used by the defunct-since-2012 Russell Small Cap High Dividend Yield ETF. [1]
Previously used symbols may be easy to pronounce, familiar, or may evoke the investing approach used by the new ETF. While a memorable symbol may confer a marketing advantage, it does not provide a guarantee of sucess.
For example, ETFs that bit the dust last year include CHEP (value), KNOW (insider), TAWK (communications sector), and SEA (shipping sector).
In addition, when a previously used symbol is ‘resurrected’, some third-party ETF research/data providers (such as FactSet) may get confused, and may not - at least initially - accurately report info on a new ETF that uses a ‘resurrected’ symbol.
SUGGESTION
When you pick a symbol for your new ETF, see if you can come up with a symbol that has not been used before. [2]
Click on the links below, for example, and compare the results for ADIV vs DIVS.

https://www.etf.com/ADIV
https://www.etf.com/DIVS
https://etfdb.com/etf/ADIV/
https://etfdb.com/etf/DIVS/

NOTES
[1] As of this writing, ETFDB.com currently identifies the DIVS symbol as the Russell Small Cap High Dividend Yield ETF. FactSet/ETF.com does not currently recognize DIVS at all.
[2] ETF.com chronologically lists ETF closures, going all the way back to 2008.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/arks-cathie-wood-disrupted-investment-management-shes-not-done-yet-51614992508?mod=past_editions
I am not sure if this article on Wood is available without a Barron's account ( but if you dont have one you should, although it is a shadow of it's former self), but it is a fairly lightweight interview with Wood. The references to her faith seem a little contrived. I dont mean that she is not sincerely a person of faith, but the lessons Barron's claims she draws from Christianity to apply to investing seem a bit weak.
It is not surprising that M* thinks poorly of ARRK. Wood violates practically every one of the principles M* claims is necessary for "success". Over concentration, asset bloat, lack of "investing background" holding a significant portion of the float of a lot of companies, etc etc. Of course, if you only make hammers, everything that is not a nail in useless!
I think it is up to everyone to make up their own minds about her process. However, some of the principles that have made her so successful are clearly not ones that Wall Street wants people to buy into ( Investing is left up to professionals with advanced degrees, high fees, lack of transparency etc) hence the negative articles.
I would be a lot more enthusiastic about ARRK if they didn't own as much as 20% of some of their positions ( and recently eliminated this limit).

One of the bigger ones: https://apnews.com/article/vacation-rentals-san-diego-california-vacations-sentencing-6054df4bc328e552ccd5a072025d6bd1

YTD performance is .34% for this well known and outstanding long term fund. Just curious how current investors in Wellington feel about this closure to intermediaries? Is this a good sign, neutral or negative to you?

More like 3.54% YTD. Having a good year in this balanced space.

....And @Simon: my whole intention in opening the TRP brokerage was to use it for single stocks. I already like my stable of TRP funds. I don't really want to add to any, either, because they are all T-IRAs, and there's retirement income here at my house, but no EARNED income to report. (So, contributions would be non-deductible.) TRP won't even let me start the monthly $100 and assign it to the brokerage's "sweep" account: PRTXX. Not unless I already had the minimum $2,500 in there. (And why would I choose to grow THAT one, unless doing so in order to buy a bigger chunk of a single stock, eh? I can do that at my own discretion. MM funds pay virtually nothing.)

The disappointment is that one used to be able to start investing in T. Rowe Price funds without having to meet the minimum fund requirement if you used an automatic investment plan (AIP).

Essentially, you agree to let the fund tap your bank account at regular intervals — usually monthly — until you reach the fund's normal minimum investment.
Many funds [would] let you start an AIP with just $50. Most T. Rowe Price funds, for example, [would] let you start a $50-a-month AIP

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7761237&page=1
That was back in 2009. Then, as now, the minimum to open a T. Rowe Price fund was $2,500 (the lower $1,000 minimum applies only to IRAs).
https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/help/fees-and-minimums.html

I follow this rule over 20 years and I have done great. I never invest based on prediction or pat attention to them, I invest based on what happened lately, and it never disappointed me. The market tells me what works and what doesn't and why I mentioned the funds/index above. When most stocks+bonds don't work+VIX is very high I start selling.
In the last 12 years I was out 12 weeks which is about 2% and avoided the largest meltdowns.
YTD:
Stocks: SPY =6.35% and very close to all-time high
Bonds: Munis + Multi/Non Trad funds are doing great
The above is already working for a year and many still looking, why?
KISS. As long as it works there in nothing to do or prepare.

NAV does not always decline from ROC payments And not all ROC payments are bad depending on the source of that capital.
Closed-End Fund Return Of Capital: Good, Bad, Or Other

”... an interview a couple of weeks ago where she responded to direct criticisms from Jim Cramer and it was pretty strong counter.”

I’d love to see Louis Rukeyser interview her. Alas - 15 years too late.
@Bud - Here’s a thread on ARK started by @LewisBrahm in February you might be interested in.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/57784/digging-into-ark-innovation-s-portfolio
Added - Thanks to Bud for the interesting Morningstar story. While I don’t get “good vibes” from this fund or its public profile, I’ll agree some exposure in the ARK companies / style would enhance many portfolios. Not sure if ETF investors are capable of “stampeding out” of an ETF the way those in open end funds can, but that type of rapid exodus would be perhaps my biggest concern.

proxy information:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312521102371/d162972d497.htm

I believe Vanguard reiterates its prior notices/actions such as limiting your annual $25,000 into the Vanguard Primecap Funds.

update:
information received on an email from Matthews today:
SHAREHOLDER NOTIFICATION
Matthews Asia Funds
Dear Emerging Asia Fund Shareholder,
As you are aware, the Matthews Asia Funds Board of Trustees has approved the Reorganization of Matthews Emerging Asia Fund into the Matthews Asia Small Companies Fund, which is expected to be renamed the Matthews Emerging Markets Small Companies Fund. The following information contains important dates about the Reorganization we wanted to bring to your attention.
Key dates:
April 7, 2021: A Distribution will be paid to shareholders of record of April 6, 2021; the distribution estimate will be available here by Monday April 5th;
April 16, 2021: After the close of business, the Matthews Emerging Asia Fund will cease to accept purchases;
On or about April 28, 2021: Expected to be the last day for redemptions from the Matthews Emerging Asia Fund;
On or about April 29, 2021: The Reorganization of the Matthews Emerging Asia Fund (MEASX/MIASX) into the Matthews Asia Small Companies Fund (MSMLX/MISMX) is expected to be completed;
On or about April 30, 2021: The Matthews Asia Small Companies Fund (MSMLX/MISMX) is expected to be renamed as the Matthews Emerging Markets Small Companies Fund (MSMLX/MISMX – same tickers).
There is no requirement of action on your part.
For any further questions, please email us at [email protected] or call us at 1.800.789.ASIA (2742) 9:00 AM -4:30 PM Monday through Friday.

I must have blinked. I don't recall Wellington being reopened after it was closed to third parties in 2019:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/48728/vanguard-wellington-fund-closed-to-third-party-intermediaries

In recent years, fund companies have experimented with various ways of closing funds. One thing I’ve seen more often is funds closing their doors halfway: They close the fund to investors using fund super­markets but leave them open to those who invest directly with the fund company.
This really serves two purposes. First, it slows down the rate of inflows. Second, it leaves more profits for the fund company because it doesn’t have to pay a No Transaction Fee plan provider like Schwab or Fidelity the usual 35 basis points in fees.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/699524/these-medalists-are-closed-but-left-the-backdoor-open
That was written in mid-2015, and included Wellington as one of the funds that were "halfway" closed at the time.

I’m such a simpleton... with rare exception (bonds for ballast? / which I exited) - I compare all equity funds I’m considering to the S&P 500 benchmark. If that’s what Buffet advises to do with retirement and plans to do for his family...it seems reasonable to me. I think FLPSX is an ok fund. But I did exit from it several years ago when it was no longer a small cap. It’s “not fair” to compare it against SPY but I do... like all my funds. When I do, SPY outperforms most years but not YTD. Joel is having a good year so far.

Assuming arguendo that your claim about Exhibits A-D is correct, they don't refute the statement that "past performance does not guarantee future results." Exceptions do not refute a general statement.
A more convincing argument could be made if one looked at the worst performing funds. Because, unlike good funds, poor funds have a greater tendency to continue performing as they have in the past. See Carhart's landmark paper.
VWELX hasn't been outperforming its benchmark over time: not over 1 year (16.79% vs. 20.70% for its benchmark), not over 3 years (9.80% vs. 11.67%), not over 5 years (11.51% vs. 12.66%) and not over 10 years (9.44% vs. 10.46%). These numbers are as of Feb 28,2021 and come straight from Vanguard using Vanguard's chosen blended benchmark.
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/performance/vwelx
Let's assume that you're right, that over its lifetime (since July 1, 1929) Wellington did outperform. That would mean that after outperforming for its first 82 years, through Feb 28, 2011, it underperformed its benchmark overall for the next ten years.
Its four score and two year long outperformance didn't serve as a guarantee of future outperformance over time - over the subsequent decade.
FLPSX shows similar underperformance in the past decade, though Fidelity never explicitly names the R2K as its benchmark. Fidelity just displays FLPSX's performance relative to the R2K and bases part of the manager's bonus on how well it does relative to the R2K (see SAI). (Here's a chart showing FLPSX vs. the R2K and the S&P 400; it underperformed both over the past decade through March 30, 2021.)
1 year (33.38% vs 51.00% for R2K), 3 years (9.26% vs. 14.87%), 5 years (12.37% vs. 17.92%), 10 years (10.73% vs 11.86%). These figures through Feb 28, 2021.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/performance-and-risk/316345305?type=o-NavBar
Unlike Vanguard, Fidelity does compare the fund's lifetime performance with that of its benchmark, so we don't have to make any assumptions. Since its inception on Dec. 27, 1989 through Feb 28, 2021, FLPSX outperformed its benchmark, 13.35% to 10.19%.
Which means that a couple of decades (21 years) of outperformance did not guarantee a future of outperformance over the next decade.

Start with as little as a hundred dollars.
Sounds attractive, but..... "In order to do this thing, you must already own shares in the destination-fund."
.......So... I've not funded the brokerage account just yet. And would they NOT let me use this method to do it? To put the routine monthly amount into my "sweep account?" If not, why the %##$@!!! NOT?
Here it is:
https://m.ac.troweprice.com/nl/jsp/m.jsp?c=@hPx3HnSS/NPl+acrQTRSEkLZkRmUrGFhpaumqcRd78Q=&cid=PI_Taxable_AAB_Trigger_EM202103291005&bid=660915060&PlacementGUID=em_PI_PI_Taxable_Autobuy_Trigger_EM-PI_Taxable_AAB_Trigger_EM202103291005_20210329&b2c-uber=u.C70CEE71-16A5-E6FF-FF67-9E86F48AE56B

The 10 year treasury yield moved up 1.73% yesterday.

Also, the intraday high hit 1.765, which punched slightly above the previous peak of 1.754 on March 18. Could be noise, or could be another round of pushing up the trading range getting going.

[Tesla thread drift]
In 2012, some may recall, when the building (or ?land) housing Tesla's last lab, on Long Island, was put up for sale, the founder of the satirical site The Oatmeal decided it was worth saving, darn it, and started an Indiegogo campaign that raised $1.4 million in record time. (A few of those dollars were mine.)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/oatmeal-tesla-museum-matt-inman-fundraiser-success-donations-14-million-_n_1948954
Scroll to the end for some interesting images and what the campaign originator planned to do with leftover funds.
[end thread drift, back to Volty]