I own this in my fidelity account, here is what is posted by the ticker for today's ending value: A short-term capital gain of 0.23105 per share and long-term capital gain of 1.4353 per share, declared on 03/27/2014, is pending on this position. Processing this transaction generally takes 1 to 3 business days

bee said
I'll add TGINX for consideration.
You may also want to add DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Inc N
DLENX to your list.
Also as to cman's oil observation:
Thursday, Mar 27
11:55 AM Seeking Alpha
Investors shifting cash into energy ETFs on expectations of oil gains
Investors are pouring money into energy companies, putting 7x as much into energy sector ETFs as they did last quarter and betting that profits of energy producers rise along with crude oil and natural gas prices.
Energy collecting new money reflects optimism for a turnaround in companies like Exxon Mobil (XOM), XLE's biggest holding, but the bet may not pay off, as analysts generally foresee lower global oil prices in 2014 and gains in gas.
ETFs focusing on oil and gas companies have captured 20% of the $10B in net inflows into ETFs this year, after hauling in only 2.5% of fresh money last quarter and 7.7% in all of 2013.
ETFs: ERX, OIH, VDE, ERY, FCG, XOP, DIG, DUG, GASL, XES, IYE, IEO, IEZ, GASX, PXE, PXJ, PXI, PSCE, FENY, FXN, RYE, DDG

Sharespost is a popular exchange for private equity shares. You can actually get share in sharepost via the GSV Capital cef.
The fact that they are coming out with a retail mutual fund feels very toppy. Plus, what cman said.

Forget the load. This is the least of its problems.
The valuation of these companies in the secondary markets are completely ridiculous to make sense, if that is what these funds are buying and don't come with liquidation preferences of late stage VCs that protect their capital at ridiculous valuation.
The arrangement to co-invest with VCs turns this into a VC fund and if there is no transparency on the process ripe for conflicts of interest investing. The returns on late stage funding aren't that great because a lot of the companies fail to have any exits and a lot of companies have too high valuations by that stage.
If you do not understand how venture capital works and how the valuation of private companies work and have no transparency into the fund's portfolio strategy and investments, stay away. If you do understand it, I don't need to tell you to stay away.

Interesting article. There is one error in the article though. The article states:
"In 2005, target date funds held less than $100 million in total assets. After several years of double-digit growth — in some cases as high as nearly 50% annually — target date funds reached more than $500 million in assets as of 2013, according to a report by Morningstar Inc."
The Vanguard Target Retirement 2020 fund alone has 25 billion dollars of assets.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1420040/000091047214001296/lcg497.htm
497 1 lcg497.htm 497
DUNHAM FUNDS
Dunham Large Cap Growth Fund
Class A (DALGX
Class C (DCLGX)
Class N (DNLGX)
Supplement dated March 25, 2014 to the Summary Prospectus dated February 28, 2014
Effective the close of business on March 28, 2014, the Fund will no longer sell shares to new investors or existing shareholders, including through exchanges into the Fund from other funds of Dunham Funds. The Fund will be liquidated on or about April 29, 2014, although this date may be changed without notice.
Investors Should Retain This Supplement For Future Reference
DUNHAM FUNDS
Dunham Large Cap Growth Fund
Class A (DALGX
Class C (DCLGX)
Class N (DNLGX)
Supplement dated March 25, 2014
to the Prospectus dated February 28, 2014 (the “Prospectus”)
This Supplement updates and supersedes any contrary information contained in the Prospectus
The Board of Trustees of the Dunham Funds (the “Trust”) has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the Dunham Large Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”) pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”) on or about April 29, 2014 (“Liquidation Date”). This date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.
Suspension of Sales. Effective the close of business on March 28, 2014, the Fund will no longer sell shares to new investors or existing shareholders, including through exchanges into the Fund from other Dunham Funds. Also, as of March 28, 2014, the Fund will no longer pursue its investment objective and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed.
Mechanics. In connection with the Liquidation, any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. The proceeds of any such redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after the Fund has paid or provided for all of its charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities. The distribution to shareholders of these liquidation proceeds will occur as soon as practicable, and will be made to all shareholders of the Fund of record at the time of the Liquidation. Additionally, the Fund must declare and distribute to shareholders any realized capital gains and all net investment income no later than the final Liquidation distribution. Dunham & Associates Investment Counsel, Inc., the Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”), intends to distribute substantially all of the Fund’s net investment income prior to the Liquidation. The Adviser will bear all expenses in connection with the Liquidation to the extent such expenses exceed the amount of the Fund’s normal and customary fees and expenses accrued by the Fund through the Liquidation Date, provided that such accrued amounts are first applied to pay for the Fund’s normal and customary fees and expenses.
Other Alternatives. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares of the Fund and receive the net asset value thereof, pursuant to the procedures set forth under “HOW TO REDEEM SHARES” in the Prospectus. Shareholders may also exchange their Fund shares for shares of the same class of any other Dunham Fund, as described in and subject to any restrictions set forth under “HOW TO EXCHANGE SHARES” in the Prospectus.
U.S. Federal Income Tax Matters. Although the Liquidation is not expected to be a taxable event for the Fund, for shares held in a taxable account, the automatic redemption of shares of the Fund on the Liquidation Date will generally be treated as any other redemption of shares (i.e., as a sale that may result in gain or loss for federal income tax purposes). Instead of waiting until the Liquidation Date, a shareholder may voluntarily redeem his or her shares prior to the Liquidation Date to the extent that the shareholder wishes to realize any such gains or losses prior thereto. See “TAX STATUS, DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS” in the Prospectus. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors regarding the tax treatment of the Liquidation.
If you have any questions regarding the Liquidation, please contact the Fund at (888) 3DUNHAM (338-6426).
Investors Should Retain This Supplement For Future Reference

FYI: Copy & Paste Barron's 3/25/14: Teresa Rivas
Regards,
Ted
The JPMorgan Value Advantage Select Fund (ticker: JVASX) has outperformed Warren Buffett since its inception nearly nine years ago, a streak that portfolio manager Jonathan Simon would very much like to keep alive.
Though Simon has not been in the game quite as long as the Oracle, he's got more than a quarter of a century of stock-picking under his belt. He has displayed a conservative bent and a penchant for companies with quality management teams focused on growing underlying value. The Value Advantage Select Fund earns a five-star rating from Morningstar and falls into the highest and second-highest percentile of its category for the past five- and seven-year periods, respectively, as well as since its 2005 inception. While the rising tide has lifted all boats over the past five years, Simon's stock-picking has added significant value: The fund has returned an annualized 28.5%, compared with a 23.8% gain for the Standard & Poor's 500, and a 22.4% average return for its pee
.
Today, Simon has some contrarian picks among retailers and a space once anathema to value investo
Simon: There is one particular area of the portfolio that's been doing really badly recently and is quite contrarian: the specialty retailers. On the one hand, it's the area causing me the most pain because that's where we've suffered the biggest losses recently. But on the other hand, it could be the biggest opportunity. The holiday season was not great for anybody, except for maybe Michael Kors (KORS), and there were fewer shopping days between Thanksgiving and Christmas than there were the year before. The weather was probably a factor, and I suspect we are in for some more bad news there. But that's fine; we'll recover from that. A really disappointing one has been Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY), but it is a company that has always proven itself long term. They've had a temporary setback, but they'll figure out how to [improve] themselves. They have a very strong entrenched real-estate position, with cash flow on the balance sheet and merchandising expertise, so Bed Bath & Beyond is probably going to be fine over the long run.
Q: There are a number of large health-care names in your top 10 holdings.
A: A few years ago Pfizer (PFE) became a big holding because the management team really started to understand that they had to simplify the businesses, focus their research and development on really promising pharmaceutical development — as opposed to just spending lots of money — and spin off peripheral businesses. So Pfizer has been a big holding because management has focused the company, and they've spun off the animal health business, Zoetis (ZTS), in a very tax-efficient way. Now Merck (MRK) is going down a similar path; its management team is going to use very similar strategy and there is opportunity there. Finally Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), on the pharmaceutical side has one of the more promising pipelines of new products. With J&J there is more diversification, with the medical technology business and the consumer business. So really those three names are almost sort of core of the health-care weighting in the portfolio: We probably have 6% or 7% of the portfolio in those three names. All obviously have good dividend yields, they trade at low- to mid-teens earnings multiples, and we think that the management teams are doing a great
.
Q: The fund has a lot of financial exposure, and names like Capital One Financial (COF) and Wells Fargo (WFC) are among your top holdings.
A: Wells Fargo has been doing what it is supposed to, which is to be the big, high-quality blue chip of the banking sector. I still think Wells Fargo has significant earnings power over the next three years, particularly as interest rates normalize. There has been concern about all the money they made on mortgage originations when there was the massive [refinancing] boom, as that is not happening anymore. But I think there are enough other levers in the Wells Fargo arsenal to offset the decline in mortgage-related earnings. I like Wells Fargo a lot. It is still a core holding. It is still a massive overweight top 10 holding.
Capital One is a bit different. I'd say it has taken a bit of a breather recently. Capital One to me has a great combination of a high-yielding loan portfolio, because of credit cards and auto-related loans, combined with cheap deposits both through the branch system and also through the online deposit [business] they acquired from ING. To me that is a very powerful business model that Rich Fairbank, the CEO, has put together over the last two years; he really took advantage of the distress in the downturn. People get concerned that Capital One is not growing its loan portfolio at the moment. But really they've bulked up so much that they are really shrinking down to a more solid core, and I think the story is going to be a lot about stock buybacks and dividends.
We have other regional banks, and one of the laggards has been M&T Bank (MTB), which has been trying to buy Hudson City Bancorp (HCBK). The regulators keep making them jump through more and more hoops on the compliance side of things, and it's taking forever. My belief is that they will ultimately close that transaction, and there will be a lot of benefits to M&T. The stock has been out of favor now for about a year. But as you know I'm patient, so that's a name that I think is going to generate strong returns for the firm over the next two years.
.
Q: Any other relatively new names you wanted to mention?
A: One timber REIT called Rayonier (RYN) is a contrarian pick. The company made an announcement toward the end of last year about its expansion. It was spending a lot of money in expanding one of its manufacturing facilities down in Georgia, and we were a little worried that maybe they were adding too much capacity to the global market. Lo and behold, they said yes, they expected their pricing and margins to be under pressure for the next year or so -- the stock was punished pretty badly. We did an analysis, and we thought that in the long term it would work out and so built it into a decent size position. It has a real-estate section although it is partly forest products as well, and they announced at the beginning of this year they were going to split the company in two. The stock went down a little bit on the announcement. But we still think there is great value there, so it is a name we are going to hang on to. We think that sum of the parts will be greater than you have at the moment. The other oddball thing I did this year -- I actually invested in an airline. I missed the big run-up, but we started to accumulate Delta Air Lines (DAL). So that's highly unusual, but things have really changed in the domestic airline industry. It has really consolidated down into three or four main players: American Airlines (AAL), United Continental (UAL) and Delta, and then Southwest Airlines (LUV) as well and JetBlue Airways (JBLU), which is quite a bit smaller. I think those companies are maybe not delivering the greatest customer experience, but they are delivering good value and much better service. That is translating into much better returns and profit margins for the industry. And as long as they remain disciplined, I think that the stock is relatively inexpensive still, relative to earnings. So even though I missed the first leg or so, there is still more to come.
Q: Thanks.
M* Snapshot Of JVASX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=JVASX&region=usa&culture=en-US
.

Cman - very nicely stated.
Let me just highlight and amplify a couple of your points.

The next option if the above is not feaaible is a combination of annuities and investments. Ideally again, buying an annuity for that absolute minimum calculated above to take care of minimum cash flow risks and investing the rest taking on shortfall risks for the "discretionary amount" may be an option with lower amount of capital than self insuring all risks.

This is something I've stated in other posts (though not quite as clearly). IMHO, the greatest value of annuities is in covering the minimum cash flow needed (after adjusting for SS and other pensions). Because that is a necessity. Beyond that, it is a tradeoff between certainty at a cost (the "vigorish" of the insurance) and the risk of an investment downturn.

Ideally, if you have enough capital you can self-insure not because you will be a better investor but you don't have as much of a shortfall risk and you can take on cash flow risk in down markets from the buffer.

I'm not sure about "ideally", but this is a key point. People who don't annuitize are self-insuring, though they may not think of it that way. There is an opportunity cost to self-insuring (setting aside reserves) - it's not free. For shorter life expectancies, the opportunity cost is higher, because one has little if any time to recover from an investment downturn. Or, as cman wrote: "The older the people get, the more feasible this option [using an annuity for the minimum needed cash flow] gets."
Reiterating and combining a couple of other points: annuities are not evil and many people don't understand risk and insurance. IMHO the latter is sufficient to explain why annuities specifically, and insurance in general are said to be "sold" rather than "bought". This lack of understanding also invites unscrupulous sales and the design of products that are salable rather than well suited to real (as opposed to perceived) needs. None of this leads to the conclusion that all annuities are necessarily evil (though some particular products are especially vile).
One last point on the selling of the product. I have a personal bias against AARP-branded products. AARP is charging a fee for the branding, which needs to be paid for by the insurer, and ultimately by the policy holder. Even if AARP served as a "Good Housekeeping Seal", there are other insurers who are well rated and may offer better products (without having to pay the licensing fee). That said, it is essential to check that the insurer is financially sound and that you are comfortable it will be able to meet its liabilities for the duration of the policy (here, about a decade).

The best you can do is understand what annuities really are and where it works and doesn't and make a recommendation based on it.
Opinions on annuities vary but a lot of them aren't necessarily from a good understanding of them. The sleazy channels through which many of them are sold doesn't help either.
The biggest problem is that people (even some here) don't understand risk and what risk management is and they may not understand the concept of insurance either. All this comes from a lack of intuitive understanding of probabilities.
Annuities are a mixed investment and insurance product. As such, they behave differently from both.
There isn't a mystery to how annuities work. Any individual has two financial risks - market risk and longevity risk. There are ways to manage this but there is always a cost to managing risk. So, it is a trade-off between the potential impact of negative consequences of risk and the cost impact of reducing it. This depends on the individual circumstances.
Annuities work by taking on market risk and longevity risk but for a price. They introduce an insurer stability risk, but I will neglect that for the moment because that is handled differently.
If you knew you were going to live exactly for X years, there is no longevity risk and you can take market risk by investing the money. The problem here is one of cash flow because if the markets enter a bear period, you cannot assume an income flow without risking shortfall. If you had an investment product that guaranteed some X%, then you can take longevity risk by investing and drawing down based on that return. But the problem is one of shortfall if you were to live longer than you expect.
Annuities try to solve that and aren't by themselves evil, only bad fit depending on circumstances.
Annuities are NOT instruments to give you better investment returns or let you come out ahead than investing in your own. Nobody can offer annuities if that was the case.
Hypothetically, imagine if you could invest by yourself based on some assumption of market returns and longevity, AND you could take out an insurance on market downturns or longevity so you got paid only if the market went down or you lived longer. There would be a premium cost to that insurance that would eat into the investment returns. If you never needed that insurance, you have paid a non-refundable cost but you got a guarantee in case that wasn't the case. If you needed that insurance payout, then you MAY come out ahead. That is the way insurance works and this is what annuities basically are.
The way the annuities are priced aren't a mystery. The insurance company calculates present value of cash in reverse with assumptions on market returns and longevity. So, they can calculate a payout schedule for which the present value is the amount you want to put into the annuities. They are also managing risk and they are not nonprofit, so they account for that in two ways - one, with an insurance pool they reduce longevity risk, the same way life insurance works and they give you a payout whose present value is less than the amount needed for the annuity. The cost of doing business is accounted this way. There is nothing inherently evil about this, just an evaluation of whether the insurance premium is worth the insurance.
What are the alternatives? Investing on your own. People who suggest you can do so and prevent cash flow or shortfall problems if you have a long enough period really don't understand risk. Investing gives you return for taking a risk, if the returns were such a no-brainer, why would the markets give you those returns?
The key to understanding this is that there are different kinds of risks and some people have better ability to take on some risks than others and therefore can get a return for them. For example, if you have a time period over which you don't need liquidity, than you can get higher returns over someone that cannot take that illiquidity risk. The longer the time period, the better the returns. You can do this easily in the accumulation phase but not necessarily in the drawdown period and so you cannot assume those guaranteed results if you need liquidity.
The instruments that provide a return without liquidity risk may require you to take on other forms of risk, a common one being inflation risk. Or, it could be interest rate risk. This may create a shortfall risk if in a drawdown period and so some people may be able to take it on better than others and so get returns for it. So, there is no getting around the fact that every option has some risk you are taking on, if you expect a return. No amount of looking at the past is going to change that. Rewards may be commensurate with risk but not guaranteed by it.
So, the decision comes down to evaluating what risks one is able to take and the products that are right for it.
The starting point for this in a drawdown period is an evaluation of the financial requirement, both in terms of the absolute minimum needed (to avoid large consequences such as getting evicted, not getting health care, not having food, etc) that people can survive on if necessary and a desired need that will let them enjoy life as they would like to. The former is where you want to take the least risk.
Ideally, if you have enough capital you can self-insure not because you will be a better investor but you don't have as much of a shortfall risk and you can take on cash flow risk in down markets from the buffer.
Most people don't have that much capital in retirement years, so the calculation becomes difficult.
The next option if the above is not feaaible is a combination of annuities and investments. Ideally again, buying an annuity for that absolute minimum calculated above to take care of minimum cash flow risks and investing the rest taking on shortfall risks for the "discretionary amount" may be an option with lower amount of capital than self insuring all risks. The older the people get, the more feasible this option gets.
If there isn't enough capital to even guarantee the minimum with everything in annuities, then the reality is that one is underfunded and not something that can be fixed easily. The only option might be to take market and longevity risks and hope for the best in the time left.
There may be a partial solution by buying annuities with inflation risk taken by you than annuities that take on inflation risk for you as well and hence more expensive.
The above is a framework for that calculation for each specific person. Annuities may or may not be a good fit depending on personal circumstances and the price of available annuities for the risks outsourced.
In any case, the decision shouldn't be based on uninformed or uncertain (by being unfamiliar) opinions on annuities, they are just another financial product with good and bad applications. Just avoid the sleaze channels through which annuities are often sold and explore the options available in the context of the needs of this couple. That is the best one can do.

Ok, so you are saying that I could use a larger portion of my paycheck to fund my 401K and use my inheritance money to pay my bills normally funded by my paycheck. Interesting. I never thought of this concept. Can you think of any downside to using this method?

Yes, that's what I'm proposing but you'd have to figure in your tax situation to see if it makes sense.
The downside is that you'd owe taxes on the money you pulled out of your inheritance however that should be offset, if not more so, by the savings incurred by your increased 401k.
Say you need to put an extra $10k in your 401k to max it out but don't have it. Take $10k out of the inheritance over the year as needed so you can put the $10k in the 401k. On that you'll either pay your nominal tax rate but a on stepped-up cost basis (if the inheritance was in equities or mutual funds) but you'll also reduce your taxable income by the same amount. If you have long-term capital gains on the withdrawals then you may only pay 15% taxes on those while possibly getting a 25% "tax reduction" on the money contributed to the 401k. All depending on your tax brackets.
Granted you may have to pay more than the long-term rate (15% if its still that) when you withdrawal the money from the 401k since it'll then be taxed at your nominal rate and not as long-term gains as you would be able to do if it was out of the inheritance but in the meantime the money is growing tax-deferred.
Again, just something to think about.

@slick, exactly.
If you measured last year, including 2008, VIG comes out even better and if you do the same measurement next year without a crash until then, DLN will likely come out better. This is the limitation of single metrics such as total returns. And we have not even gone into risk-adjusted returns!
It is far more important to understand what the funds are and why they behave the way they do and use the best fund for an application than get religious about it. Even then nothing is guaranteed. It is just a best guess.
Hence, my recommendation of DLN for accumulation phase based on an assumption of enough bull years over a longer time period to make it more likely to have a good total return and VIG as a more conservative fund when consistency and capital preservation becomes more important as in draw down period. Between these two extremes, it becomes a crap shoot. Pick whatever rocks your boat. :-)
Don't have positions in either.

Does anyone use exchange privileges for your mutual funds?
What are they?
"The opportunity given to mutual fund shareholders to exchange their investment in a fund for another within the same fund family at no additional cost. This privilege allows investors to switch funds (on the same day) when market conditions change."
How I use the exchange feature:
I try to pair funds that have high and low volatility available from the same fund company.
On days where I have outsized gains in one fund (or sometimes outsized losses) I will use the exchange option to execute a "buy" or a 'sell" between two funds on the same day. For example, Pimco has some high volatile funds (PETDX, PCRDX, PCKDX, etc.) as well as some very low volatile funds (PONDX). Pairing a high volatility funds with low volatility fund and using the exchange feature I am able to reallocate a little more strategically.
Here are some of my exchange pairs:
(Low VX)......(High VX)
MAPIX and MSMLX
OAKBX and OAKEX
USFIX and USAGX

From cman: "Financial markets are an organized way to get returns on capital, nothing more, nothing less. Money has no ethics or morals, it simply flows to where the returns are highest, whether it is based on unethical practices isn't a conscious decision that money makes and the new instruments do a good job of making that opaque so people can avoid thinking about it..."
Well-stated. I would add that it is not just new, recent opaque "instruments" that assist the people who drive the money from thinking about the fact that there is hardly a thing more tightly connected to issues of ethics than MONEY. Markets don't have a conscience. But people really, really should. There is little evidence of it, anywhere, sadly. Especially from those who drive the Markets.

Steve999: The company receives new capital only through its IPO or through additional new stock issues. If you buy stock from someone who already owns it, the company doesn't receive any new capital but part of the ownership of the company is transferred from the previous owner to you. There is no distinction between owning the stock and owning the company. A company would care about its stock price because its stockholders, meaning its owners, might wish to sell their shares at some time. They will do this when they prefer having the money they would get from selling their shares to their pro rata ownership in the company. Likewise, those who buy from them will do so when they prefer having ownership in the company to having the money needed to buy that ownership. As you see, both sides in the trade improve their positions even though the company itself is unaffected. Since the company itself is unaffected, the other original stockholders don't care one way or another about the sale. If the company raises new capital with a sale of new stock, then the old shareholders' ownership in the company is diluted. However, the company is now larger by way of the injection of new capital, so the question is whether the new capital will be used efficiently by the company, in which case the original owners' shares will increase in value, or whether it will be wasted, in which case the original owners' shares will decrease in value. It is in the interest of the original owners to make sure that capital is used efficiently rather than wasted. Stock buying is mostly dependent upon whether resources are used efficiently or are wasted. This is investing. It is manifested in increasing dividends or capital gains. There is no distinction between these and investing.
Profits occur when the products produced have greater value than all the resources used to produce them possess according to the people who use these products and resources. Profitable decisions increase the welfare of society as a whole. Unprofitable decisions decrease the welfare of society as a whole. Socially responsible investing is profitable investing; socially irresponsible investing is unprofitable (wasteful) investing.
I should point out that this is true only when cooperation (voluntary transactions) are involved. It is possible for violence to create a situation in which profitability is not a sign of socially productive behavior. For a 19th century example, property can be seized violently by government and then given to government cronies who use it to build a canal. The canal may be profitable because the original costs of buying the land it is built upon was borne unjustly by the original owners who were robbed of their land.
Alas, going to the 19th century was an attempt to keep politics out of this, however bonds being sold are examples of voluntary transactions while taxes being collected (seized) are the results of violence. If a society needs something then it will be provided voluntarily by way of transactions (exchanges) between those who provide the goods and services and those who use them, with both sides benefiting as explained above. If these things are 'provided' violently, then at best only the party imposing their will upon the unwilling party will benefit, and in the long run due to the destruction of the economy no one will benefit. Your phrase, "it just depends" manages to cloak many disastrous consequences.
I should add that this is a system in which those capable of using resources efficiently for the benefit of society prosper and receive greater amounts of resources to direct as a result while those who waste resources suffer losses and lose their ability to direct resources as a result. If this system is sabotaged by governments which make sure large political cronies (too big to fail) which waste resources (suffer losses) do not lose their ability to direct resources as a result then the system does not work for the benefit of society as a whole. I should also mention that non-governmental thieves have the similar negative consequences.
I hope I haven't shocked anybody.

Financial markets are an organized way to get returns on capital, nothing more, nothing less. Money has no ethics or morals, it simply flows to where the returns are highest, whether it is based on unethical practices isn't a conscious decision that money makes and the new instruments do a good job of making that opaque so people can avoid thinking about it.
You are correct about stocks, the original premise of investing in the company directly and sharing in its profits is no longer true for the most part. It is more of a derivative on the performance of the company with the returns coming from betting against each other. Companies can also exploit this to monetize the ownership of insiders and employees from the inflow of money. This will continue as long as people are making returns on their capital. Get an extended bear market and all of these will then be discussed and highlighted. Stock ownership is no more a way to influence the company (unless you are Carl Icahn) than ownership in an ETF is a way to influence its design and composition.
Regarding bonds, you are referring to Treasuries only. Corporate bonds are different and purchase of individual bonds are actually the most direct in being related to the company needs. Company borrows money from you and pays you an interest for that loan. When you buy bond mutual fund, you bring in the aspect of betting against other investors and getting returns from the flow of money than just returns. It is a legalized form of gambling just like equity markets despite all the rationalizations.
Use of treasuries is simply the means for the Treasury to manage their cash flow for the spending by the Govt of their revenue and so not a problem ethically or otherwise on its own. What you are pointing to is a problem with Govt policy for which there is no simple answer.
Any return on capital favors owners of that capital. By definition, this implies a transfer of wealth to owners of capital. A "fairer" system is when the returns on capital and labor are in equilibrium so that there is good mobity between the two but we are in a period where capital has managed to subjugate labor by both ethical and unethical means so that the returns are enhanced.
Part of your investment in the equity markets is to fund that move to increase the return on capital in any way possible without you getting your own hands dirty to speak, so yes, it could be considered unethical in a way but you will find most people have compartmentalized this into something that they don't have to think about so they can benefit from the return on capital.

I agree that RSIVX and OSTIX ought to be categorized the same, but I'd point out that M* is following the process as described, which is to place new funds based on prospectus, and funds with a track record according to holdings. The RSIVX prospectus, quoted below, pretty clearly puts it in MS territory.
The catch with new funds seems to be how long it takes them to look at holdings and reconsider the original categorization. From complaints on the M* discussion board, it looks like they've pulled back on frequency of revising analyst reports, so they may be getting slower on category reconsideration too.
And of course the real problem with OSTIX's fit in the HY category is that there's no category that's a close match for the investment strategy -- short duration high yield.
The Fund seeks high current income and capital appreciation consistent with the preservation of capital by investing in investment grade and non-investment grade debt, preferred stock, convertible bonds, bank loans, high yield bonds and income producing equities (“the Securities”) that Cohanzick Management, LLC (“Cohanzick”), RiverPark Strategic Income’s Sub-Adviser, deems appropriate for the Fund’s investment objective.

My re-read of Wilmatt's original post shows he's currently invested 35%/40%/25% (Equities, Bonds, Cash respectively). I pass no judgement on the appropriateness of that mix. But, any notion that he is "doing nothing" is incorrect.
Here's what even very conservative investments might reasonably be expected to return in one year's time on his stated $1.1 million. (Does not include gains/loss due to changes in NAV).
TRBUX (ultra-short bond) current yield .28% ..............$3,080
PRWBX (short term bond) current yield 1.49% ..........$16,390
PRFHX (high yield municipal) current yield 4.32%).....$47,520

Thanks for the input, Hank. Yes, having $750,000 in the stock market is certainly "doing something." lol

My re-read of Wilmatt's original post shows he's currently invested 35%/40%/25% (Equities, Bonds, Cash respectively). I pass no judgement on the appropriateness of that mix. But, any notion that he is "doing nothing" is incorrect.
Here's what even very conservative investments might reasonably be expected to return in one year's time on his stated $1.1 million. (Does not include gains/loss due to changes in NAV).
TRBUX (ultra-short bond) current yield .28% ..............$3,080
PRWBX (short term bond) current yield 1.49% ..........$16,390
PRFHX (high yield municipal) current yield 4.32%).....$47,520

@DavidMMP: FYI:
Regards,
Ted
Name
Front
Load
Deferred
Load
Expense
Ratio
Min. Init. Purchase
12b-1
Actual
Purchase
Constraint
Shareclass
Attributes
Purchase Constraint: Institutional - T, Qualified Access - A, Closed to New/All Investments - C/L.
Shareclass Attributes: Available for 529 Only - N, Indirect Use Only - U.
ALPS|Red Rocks Listed Private Equity A 5.50 — 1.51 2,500 0.25 — —
ALPS|Red Rocks Listed Private Equity C — 1.00 2.25 2,500 0.75 — —
ALPS|Red Rocks Listed Private Equity I — — 1.25 1,000,000 0.00 T —
ALPS|Red Rocks Listed Private Equity R — — 1.75 0 0.50 A —
Brokerage Availability LPEFX
CommonWealth PPS MSWM Brokerage
CommonWealth Universe Pershing FundCenter
DailyAccess Corporation FRIAG Pershing FundVest NTF
DailyAccess Corporation MATC Raymond James
DailyAccess Corporation Matrix Raymond James WRAP Eligible
DailyAccess Corporation Mid-Atlantic RBC Wealth Management-Network Eligible
DailyAccess Corporation RTC Schwab All (Retail, Instl, Retirement)
Fidelity Institutional FundsNetwork Schwab OneSource & NTF (No Load & No Transaction Fee)
Fidelity Institutional FundsNetwork-NTF Scottrade Load
Fidelity Retail FundsNetwork Shareholders Services Group
JP MORGAN LOAD TD Ameritrade Institutional NTF
JP MORGAN LOAD-WAIVED NTF TD Ameritrade Retail
JP MORGAN NTF TD Ameritrade Trust Company
JPMorgan Thrivent – Advisory Eligible
LPL SAM Eligible TIAA-CREF Brokerage Services
Merrill Edge TIAA-CREF NTF
Merrill Lynch Trade PMR NTF
Met Life Resources MFSP Alliance List Trust Company of America
Mid Atlantic Capital Corp WFA MFQ Screen Updated 12/31/13
We value your feedback. Let us know what you think.

Pretty good thought here MJG. Liked the "sky's the blackest" reference. But that's not a slam-dunk because there's no telling whether the sky may get even darker, nor how many months, years, decades that dark sky may last. (Case in point: Japan's experience). And, I don't discount the opposite approach, "momentum investing" (not that you did), as another good method for some - just not my inclination.
I guess my biggest grumble per this and other recent posts (& guilty of it myself) is using words like "luck, fate or fortune" to describe investment outcomes. We all realize, I think, that we're actually talking about "probabilities". Probabilities can be estimated based on knowledge and past experience and can also be precisely calculated using mathematical equations. It's actually ironic I think that the often maligned John Hussman probably works more with and talks more about "probabilities" than most anyone else we discuss - yet all this mathematical/scientific calculating has led him in the wrong direction for more than a decade.
Back to the "sky's darkest thought". I think that if one cautiously invests in a few dark sky ideas based on sound reasoning, knowledge, or intuition, the probabilities say he should be correct 51% or more of the time - given enough patience to wait for the turn-around. If that rate of success can be sustained, and if trading costs don't eat up too much of the gains, than this type of (diversified) dark sky investing might pay off. Regards