This does describe what I'm seeing - that an extra "income" dividend is paid at the end of the year, and that it doesn't vary by share class (since all the expenses have been paid already out of the usual monthly dividends).
What puzzles me about that M* statement (which likely reflects reality, at least in part), is that I don't see anything in the prospectus about the fund being an ersatz managed payout fund and that I can't get the financials to match.
Specifically, the fund's net investment income per share comes out to less than the total monthly income dividends (per share) paid out, let alone the total income dividends (including the year end "bonus"). How does it do this without return of capital?
This is based on the prospectus' Financial Highlights. (That's a 38MB file; just in case you've got thoughts of actually checking up on me :-) ) Wait for it to load so that it jumps to Financial Highlights, then scroll a few pages, past prospectus p. 87, to p. 89 where you'll find the data for PIMCO Income Fund.
It shows for the year ending 3/31/15 that the fund distributed 74c as income (for PONDX, i.e. Class D). This matches the sum of the monthly income dividends between April 2014 and March 2015 plus the bonus dividend on 12/29/14 of 10.6c, give or take rounding to the nearest penny.
But that same line in the prospectus says that the net income per share for the same period was only 49c. Where did that other 25c/share come from? The prospectus says there was no return of capital.
I honestly don't have a clue; I don't usually try to dissect financials this finely. There's more going on; can't really comment more on it without understanding it better. Homework for another day, perhaps.

@PRESSmUP - not unique, but not a routine occurrence (unlike monthly income divs and annual cap gains distributions).
The monthly income dividend comes on the last day of the month. For December, it came on the 31st in 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2010. In 2011 it was Dec 30th (Friday). The annual cap gains dividend comes each year in the middle of December.
In some years (2014, 2012, 2011) there was an extra distribution a couple of days before the end of the year. In other years (2013, 2010) there was not. When there was an extra distribution, it was 1x to 2x the mid December regular cap gains distribution (which IMHO looks bad enough - they should not be that bad at calculating the cap gains, absent a late sale). This year it was 25x (25c vs. 1c).
See historical div distributions at Yahoo Finance.
Morningstar is reporting the 24.75c/share div as an income dividend, but that's just repeating what PIMCO's supplemental dividend page said. How could a monthly income dividend of 5c/month transform into 25c for the month of December (in addition to the 5c dividend I expect to show up tomorrow)?
Unless PIMCO has been holding back on paying out the full amount of income on a monthly basis (contradicting its prospectus), or unless it is lying about the nature of the dividend? Any other suggested explanation of where an extra 5x monthly income div comes from?

@ducrow: Based on it's 1-mo.-5 yr. 86/85 percentile performance I'd sell
Regards,
Ted
M*: ICMBX Performance
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=ICMBX&region=usa&culture=en_US
ICMBX Is Ranked #59 In The (MA) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/moderate-allocation/intrepid-capital-fund/icmbx

Something that seemed curious to me is that while PIMCO's link to the file is named is roughly what I stated above (quarterly/annual/supplemental), the file itself says only quarterly dividends. It looks like PIMCO may have grafted onto its quarterly income distributions a CG distribution (due to a last minute sale?).
Further evidence:
- The amount column is labeled Income Dividend Rate (as opposed to the Cap Cains Dividend Rate label that appears in its 12/15 distribution page)
- The distribution amounts are the same for all share classes; that happens for cap gains, not for income dividends (expenses are subtracted from income first, so share classes with different expenses have different net income distributions)
Put these two details together and it suggests a last minute change with incomplete editing, because you've got CGs listed in a file clearly labeled only for income distributions.

FYI: In the past month — which is about how long it's been since Columbia Threadneedle dropped Marsico Capital Management (MCM) as subadvisor on Focused Equities and six additional funds — the fund now known as Columbia Large Cap Growth III has topped 75% of its large-cap growth rivals tracked by Morningstar Inc. by losing less than the bulk of them.
That's better than it did over the past 12 months, when it beat just 39% of its peers.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MjEyMTYyODI=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WebMFprof123015_1K.jpg&docId=787288&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1205&caption=&id=787287
M* Snapshot NFEAX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/nfeax/quote.html

Is it some kind of distribution? On 12/16/15 we had already capital gains distribution.

@DavidV:
No, no, leave well enough alone, unless you have huge gains and really need to reduce them to reduce taxes.

Depends on the size of the losses, value of those losses, opportunity costs.
Do you want to be out of the market for a month? Or if you move that money to other funds for just a month, what are you hoping for?
If you're hoping for a gain, then when you sell (to move the money back to your original funds) you'll have short term gains that will be taxed at ordinary income tax (not cap gains) rates, which somewhat defeats the purpose of the move. If you're hoping for the fund not to go up, then what's the point? (Though you would be able to claim any loss.)
If (in the case of PONDX) you're just looking for income (i.e. monthly dividend, not appreciation), how much do you expect to get in a month vs. getting 1% in a bank account? That difference is approximately your opportunity cost, give or take the risk of PONDX or your replacement fund changing in value over the next month.
It may be better to think of moving the money to other funds for a year (to avoid the short term gain problems). If the market goes up in 2016 you'll still wind up recognizing gains, but at least they'll be long term. You have to weigh that tax cost against the losses you'll recognize now.
Looking at PRWCX, the shares that lost ~10% might be worth selling; I'm not sure I'd sell shares bought at the beginning of this year (~4% loss) - a lot of risk (in moving money around, possible short term taxes, etc.) for a small write off. So if you do a partial sale, these are the shares I'd keep (more below).
PONDX is different for a couple of reasons. One is that the monthly div reinvestments this year have had small losses (2-3%). So you may be looking at smaller losses per share. On the other hand, moving money to a different bond fund and back may be "cheaper" - as I described above, you generally don't expect much appreciation from bond funds.
Still, it's a volatile fund in a volatile category - a similar replacement fund could go up or down a percent in a month. If it goes up, that's better than keeping the money in cash. If it goes down (and tracks PONDX) then you would have lost the money anyway, and meanwhile you realize the loss for 2016 instead of later. Not that much volatility for bond funds, even funds like this, so the risks are less in moving money around.
If you're going to do a partial sale (as with PRWCX), then I'd suggest telling your broker (or TRP if you're invested directly) that you want the cost basis to be actual cost (specific shares), with the default method specific shares and the secondary method being highest first or tax utilization. You need to do that a day or two before the sale - the brokers I've been dealing with won't switch from average cost to actual cost (any other method) in less than a day.
This is important because you want to maximize the losses you're recognizing. If you use average cost, then all the shares you sell will be treated as having the same cost - which means you'll be averaging in the cost of even those shares that went up in value. On the other hand, if you use an actual cost method, then the cost of the shares sold will be the real costs, which for many shares will be above the average.
You notify the broker, and then when you sell the shares (or the next day) you notify the broker which shares you sold. It's easiest doing it online at the time of the sale. The system will let you pick the shares you're selling, and you just check off the most expensive ones until you've picked enough shares. Or if you told the broker to sell highest first, this will happen automatically for you. That will maximize the loss you recognize.
One other point: reinvested dividends will create wash sales if you don't sell your full holding. That means that some of the losses won't be counted now. You don't lose them, you just defer them. It's not terrible, and these days, the broker will do the calculation for you. If you purchased 10 shares this month (through reinvestment or separate purchase), then the losses on the oldest 10 shares will be deferred (not counted now).
The bottom line is: is taking this loss now of enough benefit to be worth these maneuvers? Taking the losses now and buying back means that you'll have bigger gains to pay later (since you're resetting the cost at a lower price).
I took a fair number of losses this year, but most years I don't even though they're available to me. And I did it with funds that were easy to replace or ones that I wanted to get out of. Swapping back into equity (or volatile bond) funds entails risk and possible tax costs. It's an easier decision when one has a long term replacement fund in mind.

Thank you all for your answers. I still have some doubts selling funds to recognize loses.
My specific situation is following:
I started MF investing only1-2 years ago and practically all my MF purchased this year experienced loses after dividend payments and year end capital gain distributions. To recognize the loses I would need to close almost all my positions. Is it really a good idea?
For examples my 2 best funds PRWCX and PONDX. Their prices now are the lowest in 2 years. That means all my contributions (including reinvestments from capital gains and dividends) to these funds during that time have loses. Do you recommend to sell them now with intension to purchase again in a month? (For closed to new investors PRWCX that probably means selling not 100%).

Mutual funds that might be useful in replicating - to some degree - the soon-to-vanish SPHQ (an E.T.F. that currently follows the S&P High Quality Rankings Index) would seem to include the following:
DRIPX: The MP 63 Fund http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=DRIPX
MPGFX: Mairs & Power Growth Fund http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=MPGFX
VDIGX: Vanguard Dividend Growth Fund http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=VDIGX
The first fund [DRIPX] is obscure but available at TDAmeritrade.
ETFs that could be used to construct similar exposure include:
FTCS: First Trust Capital Strength http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=FTCS
NOBL: ProShares S&P Dividend Aristocrats http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=NOBL
SPLV: Powershares S&P500 Low Volatility http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=SPLV
VIG: Vanguard Dividend Appreciation http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=VIG
XRLV: Powershares S&P500 Ex Rate Sensi L V http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=XRLV
However, I have mixed feelings about the third and fifth ETFs [SPLV & XRLV], since they are offered by Invesco Powershares, the same folks that are in the process of monkeying with (i.e., IMHO destroying) SPHQ by switching its index to one that has a very different exposure - in terms of sectors and industries - than that (currently) used by SPHQ when it was posting it's admirable record over the last 5 years or so.
Keeping it 'simple' (HAH!), a 50/50 blend of MPGFX and SPLV appears to have very similar exposures and performance, based on historical performance (and for 2009 - 2011, when SPLV did not exist for full year,using SPLV Index returns from S&P website less SPLV tracking error of 26 bps from E T F.com).
Looking at individual holdings of each...

MPGFX owns 50 stocks
SPLV owns 100 stocks
SPHQ owns 132 stocks (current index, until March 2016)
The 50/50 blend of MPGFX & SPLV has 139 stocks. There are 11 stocks shared between MPGFX & SPLV, representing about 19% of the balance of the blended 50/50 portfolio.
Comparing the "BLEND" (MPGFX+SPLV; 50/50) with SPHQ, there is an overlap of 61 stocks. This represents, by dollar balance, 45% of BLEND and 49% of SPHQ.
Of course, most of the "heavy lifting" is being done by SPLV, since both it and SPHQ are subsets of S&P 500. Comparing SPLV only with SPHQ, 51 stocks are shared between these two ETFs. They represent, by balance, 51% of SPLV and 39% of SPHQ.
Again, let me know - via a post here - if you folks come up with other potential 'substitutes'. Thanks.

Always, ALWAYS book taxable losses.

As I tried to describe above, I don't agree with this, except as a simple rule of thumb if you don't want to get into more detailed calculations.
For example, suppose you are married. The 15% bracket goes up to $74,900. Suppose your taxable income (Form 1040 line 43, notordinary income) typically runs about $76K, including $2K of recognized cap gains.
Let's suppose you've got a loss of $2K that you are debating about taking (for tax purposes).
By assumption, you've got $74K of ordinary income, and $2K of cap gains. The first $900 of those cap gains are taxed at 0% (because $74K of ordinary income, plus $900 of cap gains is still below the 15% bracket limit of $74,900).
The other $1100 of cap gains is getting taxed at 15%.
If you recognize a loss of $1100, you get to save that 15% on the last $1100 of gain. Relatively speaking, a nobrainer. But if you choose to recognize your whole potential loss of $2000, the extra $900 in losses is wasted. It reduces your cap gains to $0, but the last $900 weren't getting taxed anyway, so what's the point?
Instead of having $900 worth of losses "in the bank" that you could recognize January 2, for 2016 taxes, you've squandered the opportunity by using those losses to reduce a gain that wasn't being taxed.
Similar reasoning applies at the 39.6% bracket, where cap gains rates transition again - here from 18.3% to 22.3%. You may be better off deferring the loss if it takes you below $464,850 in taxable income. A problem we should all have. I mention it simply to illustrate that it is not the 0% tax on cap gains that creates this situation, but any transition in tax rates.
There are other situations where recognizing losses may be suboptimal. The ones I'm familiar with follow this general pattern of crossing a threshold amount (often some form of MAGI).

I think bear funds can be used in conjunction with long only funds as a far cheaper synthetic substitute for long-short mutual funds. While I respect investors who object to any sort of shorting on principle, it seems hypocritical to me for any investor to embrace long short mutual funds and not consider the cheaper alternative of building their own. Not only are the fees far less for buying a low cost long-only fund like VASFX or DODGX and combining it with a short fund like GRZZX than the average l-s mutual, but there is also a far greater level of flexibility. You the investor control the amount of hedging you want to do. If you are also investing in a taxable account, you can harvest tax losses far more efficiently than a l-s fund. If the market is up and your bear fund is down, you can sell some of your shares to realize capital losses for a write off. If the market is down and you have losses on your long only fund, you can sell those shares for a tax loss instead. A l-s fund lacks that kind of flexibility and you are essentially paying 1.85% on average for a lightly hedged long portfolio.

Some years I do, others I don't. I look at AGI figures as well as how much tax I'm going to pay. There are reasons why one wants to control AGI (e.g. eligibility for Roth contributions, taxation of SS, etc.).
So my personal answer is: yes I sell losers to offset gains, but no, not necessarily for the purpose of reducing taxes.
Since I am focused on AGI, one of the cons of selling when one doesn't need the loss to reduce AGI below a threshold is that one does not have the loss available to use next year when one might need it.
Another con is that you cannot immediately repurchase the same, or substantially identical fund (e.g. swap one S&P 500 index fund for another, though there's never been a ruling on that). This is rarely a big deal as you can usually find a reasonable substitute. Still, if it's a unique fund you're selling ...
Wash sale rules apply to MFs, so you need to watch out for automatic reinvestments. I usually turn them off before I'm expecting to sell. Otherwise they can trigger wash sales. But if you're liquidating (permanently or at for least 30+ days), those reinvestments don't matter - you'll get the whole loss.
A pro of taking losses with MFs (as opposed to individual stock) is: if you sell before December distributions, you avoid getting taxable dividends. It comes out even (selling before or after distributions) if all the dividends are cap gains and qualified income. But if any of the divs are nonqualified income, you're better avoiding them by selling before the distribution.
With stocks, the dividends are generally qualified, so you can't reduce your tax liability the same way with this maneuver.
Another pro of doing loss harvesting with MFs as opposed to stocks: with MFs, you have a choice of average cost or actual cost. If you're selling in a down market, using average cost will reduce the cost of your short term shares (increasing your short term losses) and increase the cost of your long term shares (decreasing your long term losses). That's a good thing, since short term losses can be more valuable than long term losses.

A few days left to take care of your portfolio gains and loses and minimize taxes.
Does anybody sell losers from MF portfolio by year end to offset gains and reduce taxes? What pros and cons of doing that with MF? Does wash sale rule apply to MF?

Those top ten lists (I didn't look that closely) are really interesting. From the brief descriptions, I had assumed that the only difference between the indexes would be the cutoff in the number of stocks selected - a fixed top 100 for the new, and more or fewer for the old (depending on how many stocks were ranked A- or better). Also that the relative weights would be the same (just scaled differently because there would be different numbers of stocks in the two lists).
I was wrong on both counts. The reordering of top ten (e.g. J&J moved from 4th to 1st) shows the weighting algorithm is different. The presence of Apple in the new but not the old index shows that the candidate stocks are different as well - either that or Apple got a really low weighting in the old index, which seems unlikely (even with a different weighting algorithm).
All of this raises the question - what are you looking for in a substitute? Same stocks (as implied by your suggested alternative)? Similar sector weightings? Same style box (cap size/style)? Same geography (US, or is foreign okay)? Yield? Concentration?
The M* basic (free) ETF screener can do a pretty good job, if you know what you're looking for. If you just use a single criterion: ETFs with at least 20% in industrials, you've already eliminated 93% of the ETFs in the database. (Note, I'm using the GIC Industrials classification, not M*' Industrials category, since the classifications posted above are GICs).
If we ignore sector ETFs and foreign ones, we're down to just 8 large cap blends (including SPHQ), 3 midcaps, and 8 small caps.
If we look for funds with at least 10% consumer staples (including companies like Hormel), we've eliminated 99% of ETFs. All of those remaining have a fair amount of consumer discretionary. Focusing on the diversified US ETFs, we have just six large cap blends (including SPHQ), and one mid cap.
Eyeballing these, the closes appears to be First Trust Capital Strength (FTCS). Closest in industrials (25.95% vs. 26.85%), it is also fairly close in the consumer categories: staples (20.23% vs. 17.60%) and discretionary (16.12% vs. 19.19%). Trailing twelve month yield is also very similar, at 1.94% vs. 1.81%.
The portfolio is more concentrated, with 50 stocks vs. 132 for SPHQ. But NOBL also has just 50 stocks, so that doesn't seem to be a concern for you.
The overlap of FTCS with SPHQ seems about the same as that of NOBL.
- FTCS doesn't have #1 Hormel, but it does hold #2 Raytheon while NOBL doesn't.
- Neither NOBL nor FTCS hold #3 Ross, #6 Yum, #7 Nike, or #10 Disney.
- All of them have a healthy slug of #4 J&J.
- Only FTCS shares #5 Omnicom and #9 Lockheed; only NOBL shares #8 McCormick.
Overlap using M*'s stock intersection (premium) tool.
Here's a tool for looking at ETF correlation, unfortunately FTCS isn't in its database.
http://www.etfreplay.com/correlation.aspx
But that's just one way of looking for similar ETFs. What you consider similar depends on what you consider important. Me, I'd just get VIG (or more likely, VDADX) and call it a day. It's among the six large cap blend finalists, cheaper, also focused on high quality stocks, from a great fund sponsor, much higher volume and AUM (for ETF pricing purposes).
Or if you're open to actively managed funds, VDIGX. Here's a M* column comparing the two Vanguard funds: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=666314

@little5bee - if you're looking for a 'safe' dividend you're best shot at that is with both EPD and MMP. They have the coverage in spades via cash flow from operations with no need to access the market for additional capital. They both have also been so beaten down along with the rest of the sector that the potential for capitals gains are there as well and as the best of the breed I would expect them to have the most support.
AMJ and AMPL by design or necessity are exposed to the risks of dividend reductions and realignment if energy continues to get hammered and more MLP's become "Kinderized", go belly up or just eliminate their current divy's in an attempt to stay afloat. I've considered AMLP but I am content to wait for MR. Price to show the way forward. See here for one persons slant on AMLP's er:
http://investwithanedge.com/alerian-mlp-etf-amlp-finally-admits-its-8-expense-ratio
Fair disclosure - I own EPD and MMP and have for quite some time. I'm green on both but I was much greener earlier in the year. I'm underwater on KMI and working toward selling out without giving it away. Since it's in a Roth there are no tax advantages to be had but I don't expect the company to go bankrupt.

Bought bunch of oil bonds since last yr and you do see a declines in prices.

Is there such a thing as oil preferred shares? A stock beat up by the market that still has the ability to "weather the storm" and continues to pay a dividend (has low debt/ relatively high revenue) might even be better than a preferred share.
I second @little5bee recent quote:

"CVX is yielding 4.5% and XOM is yielding almost 4%. I won't get rich, but I think these two companies have the financial resources to protect those dividends. If they keep sliding, I'm planning to buy more. No, they are not the most exciting positions from a risk/reward standpoint, but I'd rather have a "safe" dividend than roll the dice on a capital gain."

@Old_Joe CVX is yielding 4.5% and XOM is yielding almost 4%. I won't get rich, but I think these two companies have the financial resources to protect those dividends. If they keep sliding, I'm planning to buy more. No, they are not the most exciting positions from a risk/reward standpoint, but I'd rather have a "safe" dividend than roll the dice on a capital gain.
Which MLPs are best positioned to weather this downturn and protect their dividends? Any recommendations? I'd like to start buying those, as well, but since some of the stalwarts...like Kinder Morgan...have been decimated, I don't know where to start.

Hi @Dex,
Thank you for your questions.
I am retired. Catching pension income, social security income and drawing on investment income when needed. In addition, being a former corporate credit manager, I do some consulting work form time-to-time.
To run my portfolio form a win, place, show perspective requires at least three funds per sleeve. And no, I have not given much thought to reducing the number of funds held for many reasons one being having to pay large capital gains if I sold off some of these funds, to reduce their number, with one being held since to my teenage years (FKINX).
And, so it goes ...

Qualified dividends are taxed at 0%, 15% and 20%, the latter if you are in a 39.6% tax bracket.

From @heezsafe 's link:
"[Q]ualified dividends ... are taxable federally at the capital gains rate, which depends on the investor’s modified adjusted gross income (AGI) and taxable income (the current rates are 0%, 15%, 18.8%, and 23.8%.)."
This is due to the Medicare surtax of 3.8% which kicks in once your AGI (not taxable income) exceeds a certain level.
From http://truepointwealth.com/recent-tax-changes-and-how-they-affect-you/
"Note, the 20% bracket doesn’t truly 'exist.' By the time income reaches the top marginal tax bracket of 39.6%, one is already subject to the additional surtax."
In addition to the description of qualified divs in the Fidelity link, there's another gotcha for mutual fund owners. Even if your 1099 says that dividends are qualified (box 1b), they are not unless you hold those shares for at least 61 days around the ex-div date.
This is the same rule as stated in the Fidelity page, but that page wasn't too clear about pass through entities like mutual funds. That is, the fund itself must hold underlying stock for 61+ days for it to pass through the div as a qualified div, but in addition you must hold the mutual fund shares 61+ days around the fund's ex-div date.
Here's another Fidelity page that goes into this gory detail:
https://www.fidelity.com/taxes/tax-topics/qualified-dividends