or too many somewhat similar funds, and the company goes through the efficiency/ cost cutting exercise. or the initial fad idea of the fund (like multiple internet funds in the 1999) no longer works. or a unique "star" pm departs/ leaves/dies.
since mutual funds are valued daily and, generally, invest in liquid securities, you'll get your portion of the fund's value. the liquidation usually takes anywhere from a month to several days depending on the liquidity of the underlying asset class. some credit or microcap stuff being worked through for several weeks, and large cap equity, in a day or two. you do get somewhat increased transaction costs imbedded in the latest NAV, so it is probably doesn't make sense to hang on until the end. also, any merger or liquidation causes realization of various gains and losses and might trigger significant taxes if held in the taxable account.

AMANX is up rather nicely. You did well to take profits. You have not been in it for very long, though. Expect SHORT-term gains, and the higher tax that goes with it. If you have a plan, stick to it. Then all this market-hype will not be what makes you decide to trade or sell or buy. Me? I just simply waited way too long. My "problem" is on the other side of the coin, at the other extreme.

ING Funds
http://www.ingfunds.com/MutualFunds/TaxCenter/Capital-Gain-Distribution
Westwood Funds
http://www.westwoodfunds.com/pdf/distribution-estimates.pdf
TCW Funds
https://www.tcw.com/~/media/Downloads/MetWest Funds/Distribution and Tax Information/MWFUNDsb.ashx
Van Eck Funds
https://www.vaneck.com/van-eck-funds-2013-yearend-distributions-pdf
BBH Funds
http://www.bbhfunds.com/wps/wcm/connect/837e6a8041d73937b969f92abe14e333/2013+Estimated+Year+End+Distributions.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&=true&id=1384550286879
Buffalo Funds
http://www.buffalofunds.com/media/pdfs/2013_Estimated_Distributions.pdf
Vulcan Value Partners
http://vulcanvaluepartners.com/uploads/file/Capital Gains/MF Estimated Cap Gains 2013.pdf
Sentinel Funds
http://www.sentinelinvestments.com/pdf/capgainsdist-est2013.pdf
For Baird Large Cap Fund investors
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1282693/000089418913006371/baird-lrgcap_497e.htm

Reply to @MikeW: I started with this Fund in March directly from the Fund.Good option for beginning investors or younger people with limited investment funds.
Automatic Investment Plan $100 Initial
Subsequent Investments $50
I listened to the call and was impressed with both managers and their explanations of their thought and investment processes.I personally see it as a Steve Romick (FPACX) style without the 14 $billion asset base.Up and down the capital structure of any sized publicly traded Co.across the globe.Will hold micro-caps when appropriate but will not hold Private Equity.Both repeatedly used the term "sleep well at night investment."
Full holdings as of 9/30/2013
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13183794/Form N-Q/Oakseed Opportunity Fund Form N-Q September 30, 2013.pdf
TEVA 5% of holdings in the news today.11/20/2013 via Seeking Alpha
Teva surges on upgrade, merger rumors
Shares of Teva (TEVA +3.7%) are trading notably higher on the session.Helping the cause is Susquehanna, where analysts have upgraded the stock to Positive from Neutral.Price target is now $50 (from $43).Meanwhile, the rumor mill is alive with talk of a possible merger with either Mylan (MYL +0.8%) or Valeant (VRX +0.1%)."People are looking for the company to do something,” an S&P analyst quoted by Bloomberg says.

Are the funds changing as well or just the 401k company?
If the funds are changing, then you need to see how the old funds are being mapped to the new funds. If you have new funds, and the old ones are not being mapped to "how" you like it, then it may be best to go "cash" (cash here is the money market fund within the 401k). And over time, you can easily average into the new funds.
Two personal experiences: when my old employer changed 401k providers, they did away with all actively managed funds, and provided only target date funds as well as self-directed brokerage. They mapped all old funds to new target-date funds based on employee age. I moved into "cash", and then use the self-directed brokerage (TR Price).
And in my wife's case, she got better (and cheaper) funds and old-to-new funds were mapped correctly to how we would want it, so we didn't do anything; we allowed the conversion to be processed as mapped out (unfortunately, the conversion was done on one of those days when the market closed very high). In hindsight, we could have gone into cash, and dollar-cost-average into the new funds.
I guess it all depends on the quality of funds, size of portfolio, and time horizon. If you are sitting on high gains, I will move to cash now, and then average into new funds (especially if you have new funds that "may" change your asset allocation). And if portfolio size is not too big, and you like old-to-new mapping of funds then sit tight.

Dear friends,
We had a nice talk with the Oakseed guys last night. A recording of the call is available on Chorus Call's servers now, and we'll be moving it to our server at month's end. I was struck,particularly, that their singular focus in talking about the fund is "complete alignment of interests." A few claims particularly stood out:

1. their every investable penny in is in the fund.
   
2. they intend their personal gains to be driven by the fund's performance and not by the acquisition of assets and fees
   
3. they'll never manage separate accounts or a second fund
   
4. they created an "Institutional" class as a way of giving shareholders a choice between buying the fund NTF with a marketing fee or paying a transaction fee but not having the ongoing expense; originally they had a $1 million institutional minimum because they thought institutional shares had to be that pricey. Having discovered that there's no logical requirement for that, they dropped the institutional minimum by 99%.
   
5. they'll close on the day they come across an idea they love but can't invest it
   
6. they'll close if the fund becomes big enough that they have to hire somebody to help with it (no analysts, no marketers, no administrators - just the two of them)
   

Highlights on the investing front were two-fold:

first, they don't intend to be "active investors" in the sense of buying into companies with defective managements and then trying to force management to act responsibly. Their time in the private equity/venture capital world taught them that that's neither their particular strength nor their passion.
second, they have the ability to short stocks but they'll only do so for offensive - rather than defensive - purposes. They imagine shorting at an alpha-generating tool, rather than a beta-managing one. But it sounds a lot like they'll not short, given the magnitude of the losses that a mistaken short might trigger, unless there's evidence of near-criminal negligence (or near-Congressional idiocy) on the part of a firm's management. They do maintain a small short position on the Russell 2000 because the Russell is trading at an unprecedented high relative to the S&P and attempts to justify its valuations require what is, to their minds, laughable contortions (e.g., that the growth rate of Russell stocks will rise 33% in 2014 relative to where they are now.

Their reflections of 2013 performance were both wry and relevant. The fund is up 21% YTD, which trails the S&P500 by about 6.5%. Greg started by imagining what John's reaction might have been if Greg said, a year ago, "hey, JP, our fund will finish its first year up more than 20%." His guess was "gleeful" because neither of them could imagine the S&P500 up 27%. While trailing their benchmark is substantially annoying, they made these points about performance:

• beating an index during a sharp market rally is not their goal, outperforming across a complete cycle is.
  
• the fund's cash stake - about 16% - and the small short position on the Russell 2000 doubtless hurt returns.
  
• nonetheless, they're very satisfied with the portfolio and its positioning - they believe they offer "substantial downside protection," that they've crafted a "sleep well at night" portfolio, and that they've especially cognizant of the fact that they've put their friends', families' and former investors' money at risk - and they want to be sure that they're being well-rewarded for the risks they're taking.
  

John described their approach as "inherently conservative" and Greg invoked advice given to him by a former employer and brilliant manager, Don Yacktman: "always practice defense, Greg."
When, at the close, I asked them what one thing they thought a potential investor in the fund most needed to understand in order to know whether they were a good "fit" for the fund, Greg Jackson volunteered the observation "we're the most competitive people alive, we want great returns but we want them in the most risk-responsible way we can generate them." John Park allowed "we're not easy to categorize, we don't adhere to stylebox purity and so we're not going to fit into the plans of investors who invest by type."
They announced that they should be NTF at Fidelity within a week. Their contracts with distributors such as Schwab give those platforms latitude to set the minimums, and so some platforms reflect the $10,000 institutional minimum, some picked $100,000 and others maintain the original $1M. It's beyond the guys' control.
Finally, they anticipate a small distribution this year, perhaps $0.04-0.05/share. That reflects two factors. They manage their positions to minimize tax burdens whenever that's possible and the steadily growing number of investors in the fund diminishes the taxable gain attributed to any of them.
We'll post a link to the .mp3 as soon as it becomes available.
As ever,
David

Thanks, nice article.
Lately though, I've been remembering that Robert Merton and Myron Scholes also were awarded the Noble Prize. They went on to co-found Long-Term Capital Management.

Reply to @AndyJ:
It depends. On rare occasions, shares purchased 1-2 years ago have gained less than the projected distribution per share. From a tax perspective, it then makes sense to sell just those shares, taking care that the sale settles before the record date. You don't need to sell all your shares. You do need to use actual cost and specific share identification.
You avoid the distribution, paying cap gains tax (if any) instead on your 1-2 year appreciation instead of the higher distribution (some of which might even be ordinary income). You can repurchase the shares the next day (ex-div).
One might ask what happens to the dividends you don't get. The total dollars to be paid out by the fund are fixed (it's the total cap gains and income generated by the portfolio). If you sell your shares, then this total pot is divided among fewer shareholders, so each remaining shareholder gets a proportionately bigger distribution. In essence, you're dumping the tax liability of your distribution onto everyone else.

Tip, if you sell now and switch to an index fund, remember to factor in that you'll owe tax on all the cap gains you've racked up over the past 20 years.

The Growth fund paid a Short-Term Capital Gain Per Share of $0.92390
& Long-Term Capital Gain Per Share $12.30854 (ouch!).
http://meridianfund.com/index.php?cID=237
It may not continue to pay large distribution amounts in the future. Was there a manager change (?) or possibly the huge run up in the markets would have contributed to the large payout. The Vanguard S&P 500 has a large potential for distribution, but has not paid anything for some time.

I received a cap gain dist from my MERDX (Meridian growth fund) fund and I thought of this board and the question, Why did my fund price go down so much? I need to understand this better. I've owned this fund for 20 yrs. The last three it's paid a lot of cap gains and I have to pay taxes on that. I'm thinking of going to an index fund to try to lessen the tax liability. Does that make sense? Index funds don't sell off stocks as much? Thanks tip

Just thinking out loud... Could one just allocate 30% of their $1M into ultra-safe FDIC insured laddered CDs and allow the other 70% the opportunity to keep up with inflation...maybe even appreciate from $700,000 to $1M over the next ten years...a 4% average return would get you there and could be completely deversified with just 2 ETFs...VT and VTI.
At the 10 year mark, another 30% would be available to reallocated from the capital appreciation account to capital perservation/capital needs account?
Additionally, in any year where returns on the capital appreciation account are greater than 4% the difference could be reallocated to the capital perservation account this might maintain a simple and continual rebalancing between the two accounts.

Reply to @catch22:
Stay safe Catch...my understanding is that the age RMD is triggered hasn't ever been adjusted upward, maybe it should be. Average age of death is now 78, not 74. Maybe RMD should be 74 for a 4 year recapture of taxes. Basically, tax need to be collected on tax deferred contributions and the potential growth of IRAs.
I'm in the camp that the contribution should be taxed as earned income (which it would have been originally if it wasn't placed into an IRA), but the deferred growth in IRAs should be taxed more like it is in taxable accounts (as long term capital gains). Fairness is the key when it comes to taxation.
RMD will shift dollars from IRA accounts into individual taxable accounts and government tax collection accounts.

Fidelity has also started a series of target date muni bond funds:
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/news-analysis/defined-maturity-funds
While I suspect that any of the funds mentioned would meet your needs, I believe none of them meet your stated requirement that they don't trade or sell bonds.
The American Century funds are zero coupon funds. But because interest is imputed, they must distribute dividends. If all investors "let it ride" (reinvested the dividends), this would be a non-event (except for tax purposes), and the funds' portfolios would remain static. But if any investor were to take a dividend in cash, the fund would be forced to sell some bonds to pay out that dividend. This might explain the 40% turnover reported in the prospectus for the 2020 fund.
Open end funds in general (this would include the Fidelity funds also) have portfolios that grow and shrink, as people buy more shares (by adding money, or simply reinvesting real - not phantom - interest payments from the bonds), or redeem them. The Fidelity 2019 fund reports a turnover of 4%. (Since turnover is the lesser of the purchases and sales, the low figure could be an artifact of people really holding to maturity and taking only interest payments, so there are virtually no redemptions/sales; in contrast, the AmCentury Zeros must redeem simply to pay out dividends, resulting in the higher turnover.)
ETFs don't have "regular" investors buying shares, but they still have the problem of what to do with the interest received on the bonds in the portfolio. Like open end funds, they buy more bonds as the interest comes in. (Then they have to sell some bonds to pay out the quarterly or monthly dividends to shareholders.) Also, when the market price dips below the NAV, authorized participants make their move - buying shares on the open market, and redeeming them for the actual bonds in the portfolio. Thus the ETF is technically selling the bonds it gives to the authorized participants in exchange for shares. (It's not really much different from an open end fund redeeming shares, except that the payment for the shares is "in kind" - rather than selling the bonds and turning over cash to the former shareholder, the ETF skips the selling step and just hands the bonds over to the authorized participant.)
The only investment structure I know of where there truly is no trading is a unit investment trust. The UIT sells a fixed number of shares (like a closed end fund), purchases bonds fitting a general profile described in the prospectus, and then holds the bonds until call or maturity. As the bonds make interest payments, these payments are passed through to the shareholders. As the bonds mature, the proceeds are likewise passed through to the shareholders. The portfolio may take a year or two to wind down, as the bonds don't necessarily mature altogether (especially if some are called early). Unlike a mutual fund (or ETF) that has flexibility to buy replacement bonds in the event of an early call, UITs just pay out the money a bit early.
Does any of this matter? IMHO, only if you want to know exactly what's in the portfolio at all times, and only if you want something that almost exactly matches the bonds' returns, rather than approximating it (fairly well), due to inflows/outflows, and the buying/selling of creation units (ETFs).

Amrican Century offer Zero coupon bond funds that I believe liquidate at a specified date:
BTTTX...2025
BTTRX...2020
BTFTX...2015
"The investment seeks the highest return consistent with investment in U.S. Treasury securities. The fund invests at least 80% of assets in zero-coupon securities. It invests primarily in zero-coupon U.S. Treasury securities and their equivalents, and may invest up to 20% of assets in AAA-rated zero-coupon U.S. government agency securities. Zero-coupon securities make no periodic interest or principal payments. The fund is managed to mature in the year 2015 and will be liquidated near the end of its target maturity year." Usually no defaut risk to impact
Four Target date Corporate ETFs
IBDA
IBDB
IBDC
IBDD
Article:
indexuniverse.com/sections/news/19229-ishares-debuts-more-target-date-bond-etfs.html
Guggenheim offers target date ETFs (many munis):
Article:
bonds.about.com/od/bondfunds/a/Target-Maturity-Bond-Etfs-An-Alternative-To-Laddering.htm
A look at a target date ETF that mature this year:
Case Study

Two questions:
-Do they see the mutual fund as their only investment vehicle? (Do they see opening more funds)
-Would they use this fund to invest in non-traditional assets, e.g. venture capital that the average investor(me) would not be otherwise able to get into given their background and expertise?
As always thanks David.

Hi Crash,
Doing the math ... and, expected returns.
On a well diversified portfolio a six percent return going forward is indeed a posibility by my thinking. Taking my own allocation and applying it on a $100,000.00 hypothetical amount which would equal $20,000 in cash at a zero return and then $25,000 to income at a return of 4% would be $1,000 in gains and then putting the rest $55,000 in stocks with an anticipated return of 8% results in gains for stocks in the amount of $4,400.00. Add the gains and I get an expected return of $5,400.00 or 5.4%. With this, expectations going forward based upon current elevated market valuations puts anticipated return expectation somewhat on the limited side. I am thinking the easy money has already been made over the next couple of years. No doubt stocks have had a good run ... but, things just don't go upward forever.
I assure you Merrill Lynch will cost just as much to do business with them as some of the other major brokerage houses with neighborhood offices. And, Merrill Lynch is not without its problems either.
Since you have heard from Merrill Lynch why not hear form the "bad guys" Edward Jones, Scottrade and Raymond James. All these have neighborhood offices. Then you have four choices of brokers that you can get in front of and do business face-to-face with the one of your choosing. Then there are some of the online brokers that you might explore also. Their cost will most likely be less. Scottrade, I beleive, has a mutual fund NTF platform. I have provided a link. They perhaps can provide the best of both worlds, in office broker advise when needed; and, internet access to online investing. Hey, why not take the tour?
https://www.scottrade.com
I think Catch 22 was on to something ... you might have been told about an insurance product with a six percent "guranteed" investment return feature. If so, my thinking, is you'll pay for a rider to get that. Many insurance products use mutual funds as investment vehicles.
Knock on some doors, talk to some people ... and, then get back with us and let us know what you have discovered. Thus far you have told us little about your tolerance for risk, your goals, your capacity, time horozon, etc. All this should figure in. And, then you get to investment choices? You might look at David's list of Great Owl funds. They have been through some pretty close review by a former NASA engineer with a review process that I want go into. Thank you, Charles.
Hope this helps ...
Old_Skeet

In essence, paying out over a larger base gives the later investors disproportionate amount of the dividends - it's like buying a dividend. The older shareholders are the winners - they get part their "income" in the form of appreciated shares, rather than all as interest dividends.
To see this, consider a simple example (1% return in a month):
Nov 1 - you own 100 shares @$10/share
Nov 30 - the fund has accrued $10 in interest (share prices have correspondingly risen to $10.10)
No 30 - the fund pays $10 in interest (ordinary income dividends); share price drops back to $10/share.
Now consider what happens when someone buys in the middle of the month.
Nov 1 - you own 100 shares @$10/share.
Nov 15 - the fund's portfolio has accrued 1/2% of interest ($5). Share prices have correspondingly risen to $10.05.
Nov 15 - someone else buys 100 shares @$10.05/share
Nov 30th - share prices have risen another nickel (1/2% interest embedded in share price) to $10.10.
Nov 30th - the fund's portfolio has accrued $15 of interest ($5 for the first half month, $10 for the second half). It pays out this interest, which is 7.5c/share. Share prices drop to $10.025.
For shareholders who bought at the beginning of the month, they get 3/4% in interest dividends, and 1/4% in capital appreciation (higher share price). For shareholders who bought in the middle of the month (who should net 1/2% for holding just a half month), they also get 3/4% in interest, but lose 1/4% in share price.
Note - this only works for funds that do not accrue dividends daily. Accruing daily means that each day, each share gets its share of interest for that day. That's the way MMFs work. If you buy a $1 share in the middle of the month, then at the end of the month, you get 1/2 month's interest. The fund's total interest is not divided equally over a growing base. Likewise, many bond funds accrue dividends daily. There are also many that do not, such as this one.

We chat Monday with Greg Jackson (ex-Oakmark Global) and John Park (ex-Acorn Select) about Oakseed Opportunity. The guys seem enthused and Greg listened-in on last month's call with Zac Wydra as a warm-up. I expect they'll talk about their decision to leave the world o' private venture capital funds for the relative calm and sanity of a global equity fund. If not, I'll likely ask them about it. Too, I'm likely to ask about their decision to lower their institutional minimum by 99%, what they make of the number of other mutual fund managers who've made large and visible investments in Oakseed (the fund's already at $80M AUM) and about the internal dynamic / division of responsibility.
Their latest factsheet is posted at their (attractively revamped) website. If you're not able to make the call but would like to have me raise questions on your behalf, I'd be delighted to do so. Just let me know what you're thinking.
And, too, it's easy to register for the call! (Monday, 11/18, 7:00 Eastern)
As ever,
David

Ted,
I finally surpassed my previous portfolio record high set on 10/28.Also a good day for foreign and precious metal funds, which have been an anchor.Like you say,don't fight the fed! Kenny Polcari this AM:
"Stocks are moving higher because the FED is feeding the beast, investors have nowhere else to go for yield, that they are forcing the risk trade and not because everything is coming up roses….and that about sums it up -the sign says: More Stimulus Ahead…"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/markets-precious-idUSL4N0IZ2P420131114
From Reuters BY WAYNE COLE
SYDNEY Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:53pm EST
The Nikkei .N225 jumped 1.3 percent early Friday to bring its gains for the week so far to a heady 6.9 percent, its best performance since December 2009. It also cracked major chart resistance around 15,000, which opened the way for a return to the May peak at 15,942.60.