We have not added to the fund in a long time. We have a lot of clients with huge, unrealized gains, so will continue to hold until we can unwind the gains. Again, comparing this fund is difficult, since the lousy Moderate Allocation category includes all kinds of fund species, very few of which look anything like OAKBX.

@hank
You noted: " 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?)"
>>>Held to maturity are the key words.....
Yes, 1.6 % or so held to maturity and assuming no changes along the 10 year journey is not much of a return. Tis why folks trade bonds, not unlike equity stuff of all flavors.
Now, not unlike equity(s); the capital appreciation is with the "price", yes?
Much of the IG bond area is running +3% so far this year................that gain such as heck has nothing to do with yield (if it were static). The longer term IG is +10% and greater.
Forget the yield with the bond, except as a reference to where the bond(s) price is parked at the moment.
Bond yield is of value and can have a straight line method of a calculation for the yield only and the money value, in the perfect world of "static". I don't find any static in today's world of money.
Now if bond fund "x" is on the ball with all of this, they are likely buying bonds based more upon pricing versus yield. That is how the capital appreciation will be had, and won't be reflected with whatever a fund states is the "current yield".
I would be more concerned with a fund (holding IG bonds) shows a high average yield. With the proper circumstances, perhaps it is time for the fund to sell away some of the bonds, as the price may be eroding.
Not unlike HY bonds purchased in early 2009 and one stating at a page indicating a yield of 20% or more. Geez, one would like that all day long, eh? But, that yield came from the price being beat to hell in the prior 6 months. I wanted the price appreciation that would evolve from the "bail out" that would help smooth the pain and fear in the markets.
Nuff said by this"WhatsAMatter U" masters program graduate, in theoretical economics.
Take care,
Catch

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

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

This is a story that deserves a lot of thought and discussion.
One of the fundamental beliefs we’ve had when investing in funds is that we will get our money back when we want it. Sure, we’re vaguely aware that somewhere in the legalese (those pesky lawyers) there is language that distributions could be delayed during difficult times, but we figured that we weren’t the type to sell during those times of distress and that once the selling panic was over the funds could resume normal operations. And we might have read somewhere that distributions could be made in the form of stocks instead of cash, but we believed that couldn’t happen in the good quality funds that we invested in, those were simply things that happened in small high risk funds run by fraudsters.
But now it’s happened. A highly respected fund has refused to cash out one of its investors, and has instead given an investor some crummy stock that the fund doesn’t want, that probably has a tax obligation that the fund will avoid by distributing the stock. The investor will have to pay the fees to sell the stock, incur the risk the stock will decline in value, and may have to pay the capital gain on the sale.
Talk about breach of fiduciary duty!!!
This is a risk that I’m not sure I want to take with my retirement funds. I’m going to take a closer look at my funds and if they are not backed up by a big reputable fund family I’m going to question if they could be subject to this sort of risk.
It may also make sense to reconsider investing the old fashioned way: Buying stocks one at a time. Anyone still subscribe to Value Line?

Junk Sovereigns ?? A Real Reach?
Markets | Thu Apr 7, 2016 4:46pm EDT
After 15 years, Argentina set for bond market return
By Joy Wiltermuth
Now it will hold a five-day roadshow in the UK and the US as it preps a new bond expected to raise $12 billion - or more - to help pay off holdouts who had rejected a debt restructuring.
Finance Secretary Luis Caputo and Undersecretary Santiago Bausili will each lead teams meeting with investors in London, Boston, New York, Washington and Los Angeles.
Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan and Santander are arranging the meetings, but few other details were immediately available.
"The dealers on it are keeping it hush-hush until they are ready to come to market," said Sean Newman, a senior portfolio manager at Invesco Fixed Income.
One of the lead banks told IFR that investors had not yet been given any information about the ultimate size of the deal or the potential currencies of issuance.
At US$12bn, the transaction would be the largest ever from an emerging markets borrower, according to Thomson Reuters data.
"It does mean something really huge for Argentina," said Bianca Taylor, a senior sovereign emerging markets analyst at investment management firm Loomis, Sayles & Company.
"They are back in the game with the curing of this longstanding issue with the holdouts, and they once again have access to the foreign capital markets."
One trader in New York said he had heard yields whispered in the 7.5 percent range, but said 8.5 percent on a 10-year bond was a more feasible target given the current climate.
But Taylor said a useful comparable would be a Brazil 10-year currently trading at 6.13 percent.
"The talk of 7.5 percent seems rich for a country still in a balance-of-payments crisis and just coming out of default."
In addition, after being unable to raise debt abroad for so long, Argentina might well come to market with a debt sale larger than US$12 billion in order to replenish its coffers and plug at least some of its fiscal deficit.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-argentina-bonds-idUSKCN0X42O6
@DanHardy You're not the only one expecting low rates to remain for some time.
Yield Curve Madness
Posted on April 6, 2016 by David Ott Acropolis Investment Management
,,yield on the 10-year US Treasury hit 1.73 percent. After starting the year at 2.24 percent, the benchmark yield dropped to 1.63 percent when the stock market bottomed out on February 11th and then climbed to 1.98 percent before falling again.
As low as your yields are today, they are among the highest in the developed world, as the chart below shows. The chart includes the G7 countries (with the benchmark eurozone rate representing Germany, France and Italy), Switzerland and Australia (each representing the highest and lowest rates in the developed world).

This chart is striking for at least three reasons. First, the overall level of rates is just appallingly low across the world. The idea that the highest rates are still a paltry 2.5 percent is troubling.
Second, and even more bothersome, is that three of the curves are negative all the way out to 10 years. There are other countries with negative yields like Denmark, but the idea that the euro benchmark curve is negative is striking.
Finally, there are only three ‘normal’ yield curves, where rates rise as the maturity goes out further into the future. The US has the steepest curve, although it’s far flatter now than it was six months ago.
http://acrinv.com/yield-curve-madness/

SunEdison (NYSE: SUNE) shares plummeted more than 50 percent in after-hours trading Friday amid a report that the troubled energy company could file for bankruptcy.
OppenheimerFunds, David Einhorn's Greenlight Capital and Vanguard Group(5.95% : naesx, vtsmx,visgx,vexmx) are among the largest SunEdison shareholders

I agree that asset bloat is a potential problem, but more to watch out for than a reason to rule out MWTRX now - especially in a tax-sheltered account where switching funds is painless.
As a reference point, posts here have had only positive words about DBLTX (OP holds it, PRESSmUP wound up with it, Samuel spoke of it as a fine fund). It now holds $57.6B, with DoubleLine as a whole taking in $10B in the past quarter (total $95B AUM).
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/26816/gundlach-s-doubleline-capital-grew-to-95-billion-in-march
Which raises another fact. A few years ago, the MetWest team took on managing the TCW funds when MetWest was acquired by TCW. IMHO that was the time to have been concerned about asset bloat at MetWest. Big percentage jump in assets while also having to deal with significant outflows.

FYI: Los Angeles-based firm added $10 billion in first quarter.
Total Return Fund increased to $57.6 billion on mortgage bet.
DoubleLine Capital, the Los Angeles-based investment firm headed by Jeffrey Gundlach, increased assets under management to $95 billion at the end of March, according to an e-mail from company analyst Loren Fleckenstein, $10 billion more than the firm reported Dec. 31.
The flagship DoubleLine Total Return Bond Fund, which invests primarily in mortgage-backed securities, climbed to $57.6 billion in assets, and has returned 1.75 percent so far in 2016, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-01/gundlach-s-doubleline-capital-grew-to-95-billion-in-march

Crude set to lose ytd gains on 1st day of 2nd quarter.
Oil tumbled 4 percent on Friday to open the second quarter, after a Saudi prince reportedly said the kingdom will not freeze production without Iran and other major producers doing so and data showed the global crude glut was likely to grow.
Brent crude fell $1.70, or 4.2 percent, to $39.07 a barrel by 11:29 a.m. ET. It was on track to a similar loss on the week, after ending the first quarter up 6 percent and March 15 percent higher.
U.S. crude fell $1.40 to $36.94 a barrel. It was on track to a 6 percent drop on the week, after a first-quarter gain of 4 percent and March rally of 14 percent.
The dollar's .DXY first rebound in a week after stronger-than-expected U.S. jobs data added pressure on oil,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-idUSKCN0WX00R
1st Quarter Wrap
The March rebound has made an impact on longer return windows too. For instance, nearly all corners of global markets are now in the black for year-to-date comparisons through the end of 2016’s first quarter....for the moment the rearview mirror is offering a new excuse to think positively.
1

http://www.capitalspectator.com/major-asset-classes-march-2016-performance-review/
Also; @Junkster's munis remain strong
Nuveen Muni High Inc Opp NMZ
NMZ (Price) 1 mo+1.14 ytd+2.85 1yr+8.13 3yr+8.31
http://performance.morningstar.com/funds/cef/total-returns.action?t=NMZ&region=usa&culture=en_US
SPDR Select Sector Fund - Energy Select Sector Stock Chart
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/xle/stock-chart#ixzz44bC3QaOM
XLE
61.00 -0.92 (-1.49%)
Real-time: 2:00PM EDT 4/01/2016

Altruist Financial Advisors seems to have some curious notions regarding Vanguard:
"For those who do not have access to DFA, we suggest they limit their bond holdings to domestic bond funds." A blanket rejection of VTIBX without even mentioning it.
(That fund was started in 2013, and the page has information from at least 2014, so this is not a matter of the fund not existing at the time of the writing.)
" However, the existence of an ETF share class makes [VTMGX] quite a bit more capital-gains tax-efficient than it would otherwise be."
Vanguard has always stated that the tax value of ETFs (at least for cap-weighted index funds) is overrated (i.e. they are not "quite a bit more capital-gains tax-efficient'). The data bear this out not only generally but specifically for this fund.
The fund was created in 2014 as the result of a merger between Vanguard's tax-managed foreign developed markets fund and its "regular" fund. See:
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/12700/what-happened-to-vdmix
So I went back to look at cap gains distributions for the "regular" fund VDMIX (no ETF share class, not tax-managed):
Per share cap gains distributions (from the 2013 prospectus:
2013: - (six months ended April 30)
2012: - (full year)
2011: -
2010: -
2009: -
2008: $0.005
To put that last figure in perspective, total distributions/share were $0.387.

I use a timing model found within my portfolio itself that keys me when to load value over growth and when to switch and to load growth. I only do this with a small amount of the portfolio due to the many strategies that I may have engaged from time-to-time. I have found through the years this to be one of the better strategies and a most effective one. Just this past month, most of the large cap value funds which I own and are found in my domestic equity sleeve located in the growth and income area of the portfolio out performed it's growth counter part (large/mid cap sleeve) which is found in the growth area of the portfolio by about 10%.
During the recent selling stampede which took place during the first couple months of 2016 I bought in the value area of the portfolio and once equities recovered I then rebalanced and reduced my equity weighting in the growth area by selling two positions that were held in the ballast/spiff sleeve thus keeping my overall equity allocation at it's target weighting of about 50%.
Again, for those that have had their doubts about my sleeve system, I have found my portfolio fund management sleeve system to be beneficial in making investment and strategy adjustments within my portfolio. However, I respect your right to continue to voice your doubts as I feel my system is geered for the more accomplished investor and might not be right for everyone. In addition, to use the system effectively one needs to be somewhat a student of the capital markets and follow their movement as well as that of the portfolio itself. Please note I am not a professional investor, or trader, but simply a retail investor that sought out ways to improve my returns over both the near term as well as the long term that would come through better positioning with a moving asset allocation of sorts.
For those that might not be familiar with my system I have provided a blurb about it below along with the portfolio's current configuration as of March 22, 2016.
Old_Skeet's Fund Sleeve Management System (03/22/2016)
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts along with my current positioning. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty & theme sleeve and a ballast & spiff investment sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement amount with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle from or to the cash area with some nav exchanges between funds taking place.
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My current target allocations are cash 20%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis on the portfolio quarterly (sometimes monthly) and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Presently, I am about 20% in the cash area, 30% in the income area, 35% in the growth & income area and 15% in the growth area.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 15% to 25% with target being 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 35% with target being 30%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: GIFAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: CAPAX, CTFAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 30% to 40% with target being 35%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: BAICX, CAIBX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 20% with target being 15%)
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, PGROX & THOAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, IACLX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AJVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PGUAX, TOLLX, NEWFX & THDAX
Ballast & Spiffs: FISCX
Total Number of Mutual Fund Positions = 45

Does anyone own Jensen Quality Growth fund, JENSX?
Fund Mojo describe this A+ fund (Mojo ranking system) this way:
"Jensen Quality Growth J Fund seeks long-term capital appreciation. Jensen Quality Growth J Fund primarily invests in equity securities of approximately 20 to 30 companies. Generally, each company in which the Fund invests must have consistently achieved strong earnings and have a trend of increasing free cash flow over the prior ten years; be in excellent financial condition and be capable of sustaining outstanding business performance. The Fund may invest in securities when they are priced below their intrinsic values as determined by the adviser."
Others receiving notable scores from Mojo:
PARWX - A+
FUNYX (I like the ticker) - Master
SBLYX - Master
fundmojo.com/mutualfund/bestmanager.php?category=Large+Growth

FYI: How about some laurels for those managers who rode the stock higher but had the sense to get out when things turned ugly?
This blog noted that Weitz Investment Management sold all of its shares in embattled Valeant back in November. Regulatory filings show that Weitz had been gradually reducing its Valeant stake since the middle of 2013.
Fidelity Institutional Asset Management (FIAM LLC), formerly Pyramis Global Advisors, appears to have trimmed a long-time stake a couple times last year before ultimately selling roughly 4 million shares, or 65% of their holding, in the fourth quarter. Likewise for BMO Global Asset Management, which dumped 3.2 million shares, or 45% of its holding last quarter. Janus Capital Management (JNS) and Franklin Resources (BEN) likewise appeared to exit on top.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/03/22/these-fund-companies-cut-stakes-in-valeant-in-4q/tab/print/

FYI: The business model of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc (VRX.TO), target of a securities investigation and under scrutiny for its pricing and accounting practices, "was based on leverage and financial engineering," fund manager Bill Gross of Janus Capital Group Inc (JNS.N) said Tuesday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-janus-tweet-idUSKCN0WO2L4

Additionally, American doesn't charge a load on reinvested dividends or capital gains, as do some load funds.

I think managed payout funds like this make more sense for income, not growth. They are effectively the mutual fund industry's answer to annuities, trying to give you a smooth cash flow (though not as smooth as an annuity's) while still leaving you the possibility of something left over.
(That latter objective depends on the payout strategy. For example, Fidelity's Income Replacement Funds are designed to spend down to zero, much like a fixed term annuity.)
The emphasis is on low volatility and cash generation, not exactly what one wants if one is trying to grow assets for a later income stream. One doesn't invest in bonds (and reinvest interest) for capital growth.
Managed payout funds are fairly common in the closed end fund universe, so you might look around there to see how they work. Return of principal is tax free - you don't have to worry about paying taxes on your own money. The more interesting question is what happens when the investment generates more income and gains than the fund is scheduled to pay out?
A fund is taxed directly if it doesn't pay out substantially all its capital gains. According to the fund's SAI, Vanguard gets around this by some legerdemain that makes it appear to the IRS that you did get paid the gains, and then Vanguard gets you an offsetting tax credit. You don't have to worry about the details; the short story is you don't have to worry too much about weird tax impacts.
Here's an interesting and fairly current discussion/analysis of managed payout funds from Natixis and Vanguard. For a variety of reasons, including the way Vanguard gently adjusts the payout percentage based on performance, I like Vanguard's approach. But it doesn't seem to fit your objective.

Would it make sense to buy a fund like this, and reinvest all dividends and capital gains in order to grow an income stream? What wouldn't seem to make sense would be to receive payouts which might consist of (at least in part) of your own initial investment. If so, then you would be reinvesting your own initial investment, and perhaps paying tax on it as well. Maybe this type of fund would only make sense if you are using the income distributed immediately?

Capital gains stocks are overrated. Talking heads like to talk about them. Dividends and bonds have been golden since the early 80s

Yet more changes at Calamos. What's the plan, what's the business model? That "vision thing"--- can anyone make sense of what is happening at this shop?
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160315/NEWS01/160319909/calamos-investments-patriarch-gives-up-ceo-title

net income fell every year for the past five years, dropping to $21.4 million last year, or about a third of the $70.8 million it earned in 2014, and down from $137.9 million in 2011. Revenue fell 8 percent last year to $230.9 million, also declining for the fifth year in a row. [...] Calamos has suffered alongside public shareholders because a family affiliate owns 78 percent of the company, with just 22 percent of the economic interest traded publicly on the Nasdaq Stock Market.
Efforts to revamp the management team have made little difference. In 2013, Co-Chief Investment Officer Nick Calamos, a nephew of the founder, exited and was replaced by former Janus Capital CEO Gary Black, but he didn't last long. Black left the firm last fall.

Geez Louise!

Koudounis will earn an annual salary of $800,000, plus an annual bonus of $2.6 million, or more, depending on a determination by the board’s compensation committee, the company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission today. In addition, he will get annual “long term incentive awards” of $1.6 million. A one-time sign-on payment of $1.25 million will be payable next year