https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/893730/000089373021000004/supplement_20210308.htm
497 1 supplement_20210308.htm
SUPPLEMENT DATED March 8, 2021
TO SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (“SAI”)
Integrity Energized Dividend Fund (the “Fund”)
Class A: NRGDX
Class C: NRGUX
Class I: NRIGX
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and SAI dated November 30, 2020
The Board of Trustees of the Integrity Energized Dividend Fund (the “Board”) has determined that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be liquidated and terminated. The Board has determined to redeem all outstanding shares of the Fund and then close the Fund on or about June 30, 2021 (the “Termination Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund may no longer pursue its stated investment objectives, will begin liquidating its portfolio and may invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds. The Fund remains closed to additional purchases.
You may redeem or exchange your shares, including reinvested distributions, prior to the Termination Date, and you will not be subject to the Fund's contingent deferred sales charge. Additionally, if you are exchanging into a different Integrity Viking Fund you will not have to pay any initial sales charge. Any shareholders who have not redeemed or exchanged their shares of the Fund prior to the Termination Date will have their shares automatically redeemed at the net asset value per share as of that date, and proceeds will be sent to the address of record. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor or call the Fund's Shareholder Services Department at (800) 601-5593.
A redemption or exchange is generally considered a taxable event. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Hi @LewisBraham
I've read this previous, and that she also supported Trump; but to the aspect of the "tax laws" changes that were put in place during his term.
Covid, IMHO; pushed the disruption technologies forward faster than they might have traveled during normal market conditions.
I've remained a "tech" investor for many years, which continued to become more apparent to me over many years from my technology background. Thus, I continued to follow technology advancements and investments. A personal view of this was combined to "discover" a best of both worlds related to the "boomers" and technology; although medical technology is not strictly related to boomer medical. I still place favor towards an investment as FSMEX or a similar etf, IHI.
However, I remain fully open and aware to the some of the disruptive technology holdings found among the ARK funds. Some will flounder about and/or fail. But, I think the "themes" in place are fully valid. I/we do our best to remain informed. Conversations and questions to and with the under 40 age group helps to discover what impacts are taking place in the "financial tech." area. Hell, I/we still write some paper checks; but our first exposure with early "fin tech." was the payments we received via PayPal from our sales on eBay about 20 years ago when it was wholly owned by eBay; versus paper checks and/or VISA.
We remain in interesting times, eh?
Take care,
Catch

Bee's "Ignoring Energy Transition Realities as We Greenify" discussion is important, and addresses quite a number of aspects which I will not discuss here.
I've taken the unusual step of opening a separate "chapter" on this subject, so to speak, because it seems to me that we, as a nation, are blithely stepping off a cliff without a whole lot of contemplation of the rocky landscape below.
Bee's discussion, like most others on this subject, makes some assumptions that I seriously question. Those assumptions go to the very heart of the issue: is it even realistically possible to have this electric "Greenification"?

***************************************************************************
As I write this, the last post in Bee's discussion is from kings53man, who contemplates a comforting scene of "thousands/M of electric vehicles [charging] in the night". This is absolutely not to poke fun at kings53man, because his scene is actually a pretty common picture promoted by the Green folks.
Now, before the bricks start flying, let's establish this: I fully understand the climate dilemma, agree that humans likely are major contributors to the problem, and that "something" major needs to be done, and soon.
What I have a great problem with are some of the blithe assumptions seemingly thrown out as "solutions", with little or no challenge from the standpoint of practicality. To keep things reasonably easy to contemplate, let's confine our picture to the United States.
OK, postulate that in "x" number of years no more internal engine vehicles are going to be produced. Anyone wanting a vehicle will need to be driving electrics. Fine... one problem solved.
Energy. It comes in lots of different packages. To list just four: coal, natural/synthetic gas, gasoline/diesel, electricity. To help visualize the issue, consider each energy package as a number of boxes- that number being relative to the amount of each being currently used. The total amount of energy needed is equal to the volume of all of the various boxes.
Keeping things simple, lets assume that one box of energy is equal to any other box of energy, and that any kind of box may be transported over any kind of energy distribution network: a mental picture of boxes being transported across the country through trucks and tankers, or more weirdly, shoving their way through pipelines and thin electric grid wires.
Now, the reality is that all of the presently existing energy transportation networks are pretty close to operational capacity. There's simply not a huge amount of extra room just waiting to be used on the existing electric grids or fuel pipelines.
***************************************************************************
OK, coal is obviously a loser, and can be replaced for the most part by natural gas. So that means more boxes of natural gas, fewer of coal. This is actually under way, and seems pretty easy.
BUT: natural gas is now deemed unacceptable also, and the proposed premise is to substitute boxes of electricity. Now things are getting a bit more complicated. First of all, the electrical distribution grids of the United States do not have the capacity to transmit a significant additional number of energy boxes.
Let's step back for a moment and try to visualize a couple of huge mountains of energy boxes. First, those boxes needed to support our national vehicle fleets. Second, the boxes needed to supply heating and cooking for homes and workplaces. It's being proposed that all of those boxes are to be transported somehow over our already stressed electric grids. To me, this is a typical picture of political operators who haven't the faintest idea of the actual practical realities of electrical transmission. Very much like the politicians who are responsible for the Texas power grid network.
Let's think for a moment about the actual efficiency of various energy types. Yes, electricity can certainly be used to generate heat, and fairly easily too. Unfortunately, it takes significantly more than one box of electricity to equal the heat energy in one box of natural gas energy. In other words, electricity is simply less efficient than natural gas to transport or generate heat.
Well, that's something that obviously needs more thought, so let's look instead at vehicles. Again, to keep things fairly simple, let's ignore large trucks and similar equipment, and just consider the average automotive vehicle.
OK, first, lets look at the mountain of energy boxes now supplied by gasoline or diesel fuels, and try to visualize those boxes also being stuffed through the national electric energy distribution systems. H'mmm- that's quite a puzzler also. Existing grids were largely built when the country was less populated, and it was a lot easier to construct major infrastructure without lawsuits and protests. Not suggesting that situation was ideal- simply stating a fact.
When pundits and promoters talk about the "electric grid system", most of us compose a mental picture of huge steel pylons with heavy electric wires marching across the land. We think something like "well, those really aren't all that pretty, but then the odds of having one of those in my backyard are pretty slim, and most of that stuff is someplace else anyway".
Really? The next time you're out and about take a moment and look at the wiring on any overhead electric distribution system. Try to imagine having to either replace most of those wires with much thicker wires, or alternately, to double or triple the number of wires. Take a close look at some of those power poles, and note the large metal enclosures which are mounted there. Those are transformers, and they will also need to be either much larger, or have many more of them. Speaking of the power poles themselves- do you notice that many of them are already pretty full of stuff, and that there really isn't a lot of room for more stuff?
Well, perhaps you're fortunate, and live in a nice middle-class area where everything is neatly underground and out of sight. Sorry- get prepared for a lot of digging and streetwork- all of those systems will need substantial upgrades also.
Wow! And how exactly is all of this going to be paid for?
***************************************************************************
Well, let's assume some sort of miracle on that, and consider how each new electric vehicle is actually going to receive it's energy packages via the grid.
Right! We're back to looking at "thousands/M of electric vehicles will charge in the night". Sounds easy enough. It's not too difficult to image a cozy scene of middle-class detached homes with one or two electric vehicles happily guzzling boxes of electric energy while their owners sleep away the night. OK, that's under control.
But what about the huge number of Americans who live in apartments, multi-family housing, or who need to park their vehicles on the street because they don't have suitable garage space?
And, thinking about this a little more, exactly what kind of plugs and extension cords will all of this need? The present vehicle charging systems don't just plug into the nearest 120 volt outlet with a #14 extension cord from Home Depot. No, each charging station needs to be installed with a power source that is pretty heavy-duty and able to handle the increased load.
Has anyone, anywhere, even begun to think through the financial implications of any of this? We have a substantial percentage of Americans who even now can barely keep food on the table. And they are going to have to install an expensive charging system in older homes which would need significant wiring upgrades to even accommodate this?
So now we are telling those people "sorry- but having a vehicle is just for the better-off folks"?
***************************************************************************
I've deliberately only touched on a few of the aspects of this whole thing. Having spent much of my career in electronics, I naturally tend to look at things from a somewhat technical point of view, and fully understand that others may not do so. But, as demonstrated here in California, and also so very recently in Texas, placing ignorant political activists of any persuasion in charge of problems requiring some degree of interest in and understanding of technical reality is not particularly helpful.

https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/corporate-bond-market-is-zombie-apocalypse-coming
Corporate Bond Market: Is a “Zombie” Apocalypse Coming? | Charles Schwab
*The high-yield bond market is more exposed to zombies than the investment-grade market. High-yield bonds are aggressive investments regardless ...
What’s a “zombie company”? You may have heard the term in the financial media recently and wondered if it’s something you should be worried about.*
Diversified maybe keys in these market conditions.
No stopping, keep going?? We have same portfolio.
We did not however add to Corp bonds /munis recently.
Anyone still buying junk bonds adding etf or funds past few wks?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806633/000119312521067244/d146109d497.htm
(see link for funds and symbols)
...This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Wasatch Funds Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”) for Investor Class and Institutional Class shares dated January 31, 2021. You should retain this Supplement and the SAI for future reference. Additional copies of the SAI may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at wasatchglobal.com or calling us at 800.551.1700.
Effective on March 19, 2021, the section “Open/Closed Status of Funds” in the section entitled “General Information and History” on page 3 of the SAI is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Open/Closed Status of Funds. The Emerging India Fund, Emerging Markets Select Fund, Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund, Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund, Global Opportunities Fund, Global Select Fund, Global Value Fund, Greater China Fund, International Growth Fund, International Select Fund, Micro Cap Value Fund, and U.S. Treasury Fund are each open to investors.
The Core Growth Fund, International Opportunities Fund, Micro Cap Fund, Small Cap Growth Fund, Small Cap Value Fund and Ultra Growth Fund are each closed to new purchases, except purchases by new or existing shareholders purchasing directly from Wasatch Funds, existing shareholders purchasing through intermediaries, and current and future shareholders purchasing through financial advisors and retirement plans with an established position in the Fund. Fund officers may waive or revise the conditions of a closed fund for an intermediary depending on its ability to systematically apply the conditions.
https://wasatchglobal.com/wasatch-small-cap-value-fund-to-close-to-new-investors/
https://wasatchglobal.com/wasatch-micro-cap-fund-to-close-to-new-investors/

But we're really not discussing the thing that I find most worrisome: if banks in major Western democracies have no use for cash, what does that imply about the viability of cash as a trading medium? I believe that never before in my 81 years has such a situation existed, certainly not here in the US.
Isn't there a distinct danger that at some point other financial entities would begin to feel the same way? And if something like that gets started, wouldn't there be an almost immediate run-for-the-door panic? And actually, where would anyone run to?
It seems to me that the entire financial value system as we have known it is tottering on a very dangerous balance point.
I know that many of you are much more financially astute that me, and I'd really appreciate your comments on all of this.
OJ

M* continues to list it as a "financial" sector asset. Nothing further from the truth. It's value does not depend on the Insurance company

NYT article:
technology/china-national-digital-currency

After joining the lottery through the social media app WeChat, Ms. Huang, 28, a business strategist in Shenzhen, received a digital envelope with 200 electronic Chinese yuan, or eCNY, worth around $30. To spend it, she went to a convenience store near her office and picked out some nuts and yogurt. Then she pulled up a QR code for the digital currency from inside her bank app, which the store scanned for payment.
“The journey of how you pay, it’s very similar” to that of other Chinese payments apps, Ms. Huang said of the eCNY experience, though she added that it wasn’t quite as smooth.
China has charged ahead with a bold effort to remake the way that government-backed money works, rolling out its own digital currency with different qualities than cash or digital deposits.
Digital currencies created by central banks give governments more of a financial grip. These currencies can enable direct handouts of money that expire if not used by a particular date and can make it easier for governments to track financial transactions to stamp out tax evasion and crack down on dissidents.
The design of eCNY borrows only a few minor technical elements from Bitcoin and does not use the so-called blockchain technology, a ledger-like system

Can anyone recommend a Bloomberg TV or Fox Business news channel program that focuses on stock picks and why? Similar to CNBC Halftime format? Any favorite podcasts for stock picks or mutual fund picks and why? I am not looking for economic or politics or macro conversations etc.

M* is off. Besides Apple being the largest holding, BRK have lots of financial, consumer staple and transportation stocks which are value stocks. Perhaps a better fit would be a modest growth stock.

Well as they say hindsight is 20-20 right?
Should note that the fund did have a nice pedigree and backing, David Bonderman, chair and founder of TPG, private equity firm w/~$85B in assets backed (per WSJ, TPG/Bonderman had no day to day participation in the mgmt or valuation of investments in the fund") InfinityQ and per the WSJ article, according to people familiar with the matter had approx $100MM invested in the fund.
To the Monday morning QBs...Please show me any other fund that was around since Oct 2014 and had the same combo of low drawdown, volatility and return and zig when the SPY zagged downward...(potential fraud and make believe numbers not withstanding)
@Wabac, noting that the return of the fund was after paying the high fee, still not a bad return...dunno, I get it that expenses eat into returns, but if I'm going to the Doc, Dentist, auto mechanic, I look for the most experience, value and quality etc...not low price necessarily. If he was not cooking the numbers, I would argue that this fund was worth the high cost.
Just be careful, you might be next...we might be talking about the wisdom of those who put their monies into a SPY index fund that includes Tesla and the Cathie Wood funds as something that in hindsight looked really foolish...let's be intellectually honest with each other as why not, we don't know each other anyways...but I'd argue that the ARK funds could easily go down another 50% from here...we know they are way overvalued but some pour money into them until maybe last week. That to me, seems like a way crazier investment that putting monies into a fund with an over 5 year track record and backed by a very experienced private equity founder.
So, anyways, let's hope it all works out and no one loses too much monies for this financial lesson....as always, respect, good health and good luck to all,
Baseball Fan

@Baseball_Fan

I want to know what the young man who was running the fund was exactly doing? Was there malfeasance? Or did he really believe the 3rd party model was incorrect and there was a "tweaking" for good reason? He's obviously lawyered up. Who else knew and who challenged him on his actions? Wasn't there a compliance/risk officer? What was he doing/not doing/getting paid for?

Good questions. To those I would add what was it that finally did bring this to the SEC's attention?
Regarding the audit question, I was referring to the annual reports.
This is from their August 2020 annual report:

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Trustees of Trust for Advised Portfolios and the
Shareholders of Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund
Opinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated statement of assets and liabilities of Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund, a series of shares of beneficial interest in Trust for Advised Portfolios, and Subsidiary (the "Fund"), including the consolidated schedule of investments as of August 31, 2020, and the related consolidated statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, the statement of cash flows for the year then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the years in the three-year period then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). The consolidated financial highlights for the years ended August 31, 2017 and August 31, 2016 were audited by another independent registered public accounting firm whose report, dated February 1, 2018, expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial highlights. In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Fund as of August 31, 2020, the consolidated results of their operations for the year then ended, their cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in their net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, and financial highlights for each of the years in the three-year period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Fund's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Fund's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) ("PCAOB") and are required to be independent with respect to the Fund in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Fund is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of August 31, 2020, by correspondence with the custodian, prime broker and third-party counterparties. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Bold emphasis my own.
To answer my own question. My interpretation is that the audit just makes sure that there are no irregularities in the numbers or accounting in the financial reports but not an assessment of the validity of how the asset values are obtained or the actual pricing of the assets themselves. But I'm no expert on financial reports.
I also think the comparison of Infinity Q and T. Rowe Price is like comparing apples & oranges, even concerning TMSRX. Especially as Infinity Q was essentially a one man operation. Anything is possible & I definitely understand the concern.
@Sma3
Regarding IOFIX, my impression was they were not disclosing to shareholders the risks involved with some of their holdings- their method of buying & valuing odd lots not widely traded which during times of stress (ie last March) might become difficult to unload.
@Derf
I have no idea what a "reasonable" amount would be but for me, in general, I tend to limit any one holding to no more than 5-7%. TMSRX is currently around 6.5%. The main exception to that is PRWCX which I started investing in back in the 1990s. It sits around 16%.

ARKK is not for investors, it is a pure momentum play. Investor will identify a good stock with potential to put money in. Gambler will have to know when to get in and get out. I started getting into ADNPX managed by Cathie woods 8 months ago, made handsome of money. Eventually getting out and completely out yesterday. Tried to be investor with this fund but couldn't make it. I suspect this ARKK thing has lost momentum will be out of fashion for sometime. Will see. Lately, financial sector is in trend. ARKF (fintech ETF) peaked on 2/16/21 at 64.49, future as is of this moment 57.11)

H & R Block entered the personal financial software market in late 1993 with the purchase of MECA Software, which was best known for its "Managing Your Money" program. Block decided, however, to sell MECA in March 1995 for $35,000, while retaining the right to publish tax preparation software under the name TaxCut. By 1998 its subsidiary, Block Financial Corporation, was the second largest publisher of personal financial software, with record sales of Kiplinger TaxCut, as more people were using their computer and the Internet to prepare their own tax returns.

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/h-r-block-incorporated-history/

On October 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia announced its decision to issue a permanent injunction blocking H&R Block's proposed acquisition of the company that markets the TaxACT line of tax-preparation software. The court found that the proposed acquisition would substantially lessen competition. ... [In 2011] H&R Block market[ed] a line of tax-preparation software under the brand name "H&R Block At Home" (formerly known as "TaxCut").

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/federal-district-judge-issues-permanent-12068/
If you used something in 2011 or 2012 called Tax <something> it wasn't Tax Cut. These days, H&R doesn't even seem to have a name for its software. Here's what Tax Cut looked like in the early 2000's when it ran on Windows XP and a Pentium (90MHz, 133MHz preferred).

Source: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/480145-REG/H_R_Block_1016600_06_TaxCut_Premium_Federal_and.html/specs

“The study findings, released Friday, portend a long era of muted returns for higher education institutions, which will likely encourage them to have a fresh look at financial and investment strategies in order to meet critical return targets and sustain their mission of providing urgently needed support to students. The new study was based on responses of 705 institutions representing $638 billion in endowment assets, and covers the fiscal year July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020.”
“Endowments’ average one-year returns were 1.8% as of June 30, compared with 5.3% for the previous fiscal year. The historical target return for endowments has been 7.5%, comprising spending requirements, but in recent years, endowments have been challenged to meet this target, according to the study.”
Article
NOTE - Study may be a bit misleading since it measures the one-year returns as of June 30 - shortly after the pandemic induced selloff. However, 1.8% seems like a dismal one-year return. My sense is that both 2019 and 2020 were pretty good years for most investors - despite the March / April pummeling.

Thanks @hank,
I can read it using Safari's Private Window (this somewhat works less than 50%). Otherwise I search for the title when it is posted elsewhere.
The comments below the article reveals various investor views. I tend to agree with this poster.

What this article is missing is that the stock market starting point is already too high. All the good news mentioned here should already be discounted. The high market level has only one cause: money for nothing and QE galore. Furthermore, the level of indebtedness is such that a moderate interest rate rise will have a huge effect (unlike previous times). Any tightening in financial conditions (higher long-term yields for example) with the Fed margin for maneuver more limited (inflation ticking up) will cause a cataclysm in the markets. The timing is anyone's guess. Therefore advising readers to "stay in equities for a while yet" or worse buying the dips is totally irresponsible, given the current over-inflated stock levels.

Feb 20th Episode:

Beyond Diversification: What Every Investor Needs to Know About Asset Allocation:

On October 28th, Sébastien Page and Chris Dillon discussed principles from Sébastien’s recent book, “Beyond Diversification.” Sébastien combines his 20 years of investing experience; analysis from more than 200 academic articles; insights shared from a cast of expert colleagues at T. Rowe Price; and, perhaps most importantly, practical lessons passed down by his father, a renowned finance professor.

beyond-diversification-insights-webinar-replay
Against the Wind (CNBC Interview):

Sebastien Page's Bio and Articles:
Sébastien Page, CFA, Head of Global Multi-Asset

@Derf
I thought several of the funds were going to be "hard closed" to all investors. After reading the footnotes, it appears that the funds are closing primarily through financial intermediaries. This should signal to potential investors/existing investors that these funds may close at any time. At least by leaving the funds open through GP allows GP to control and monitor incoming monies into these funds.

"[1]"Hard Closure": means that these Funds will no longer accept purchases, from new or existing investors, through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of: (1) a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure, (2) an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or (3) a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team. The Funds will remain open to purchases from existing investors, and to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
So it appears one can still buy directly through the fund , YES or NO ?
Derf

Here's a bit of additional information excerpted from a recent article in the WSJ:

The billionaire Warren Buffett added two more big, American brands to Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s investment portfolio.
Mr. Buffett’s conglomerate has purchased $8.6 billion in stock in Verizon Communications Inc., the largest U.S. mobile carrier, and $4.1 billion in Chevron Corp. according to a snapshot of investments held in the quarter ended Dec. 31.
In 2020, Chevron had its worst year since 2016, and Verizon’s fourth-quarter profit fell after it booked higher costs and gained fewer new customers than usual.
It isn’t clear whether Mr. Buffett made the decision to invest in the two firms or if the decision was made by Berkshire money managers Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. The two are expected to take over all of Berkshire’s investments once Mr. Buffett is no longer in the top job.
Berkshire adjusted some of its drugmaker investments bets. The conglomerate sold off its $136 million investment in the Covid-19 vaccine maker Pfizer Inc., while increasing stakes in the pharmaceutical brands AbbVie Inc., Merck & Co. and Bristol Myers Squibb Co.
It also continued to cut back from financial firms, selling off its remaining $93 million investment in JPMorgan Chase & Co., and whittling away at its stake in Wells Fargo & Co. by $1.4 billion.
Last year Berkshire Hathaway sold stakes in airlines, including United Airlines Holdings Inc., American Airlines Group Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co. Mr. Buffett said he thought consumer behavior regarding travel had changed for the long term.

Additionally, I believe that in the past few days I read an article reporting that Berkshire had significantly cut back it's investments in Apple, but I'm unable to locate that source at this time.