https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1041917/000119312519248051/d806608d497.htm
497 1 d806608d497.htm COHEN & STEERS REAL ESTATE SECURITIES FUND, INC.
COHEN & STEERS REAL ESTATE SECURITIES FUND, INC.
CLASS A (CSEIX), CLASS C (CSCIX), CLASS F (CREFX), CLASS I (CSDIX),
CLASS R (CIRRX) and CLASS Z (CSZIX) SHARES
Supplement dated September 18, 2019 to
Summary Prospectus and Prospectus dated May 1, 2019
The Board of Directors of Cohen & Steers Real Estate Securities Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”) has approved a plan to close the Fund to new investors, subject to certain exceptions outlined below, effective at the close of business on November 8, 2019. Existing shareholders can remain invested in the Fund after November 8, 2019 and continue to add to their positions. The following information rescinds and replaces the supplement to the Fund’s Summary Prospectus and Prospectus dated September 5, 2019.
Effective immediately the following paragraphs are added to the beginning of the “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” section of the Summary Prospectus and immediately after the first paragraph in the “How to Purchase, Exchange and Sell Fund Shares—Purchasing the Class of Fund Shares that is Best for You” section of the Prospectus:
Effective at the close of business on November 8, 2019 (the “Closing Date”), the Fund will be closed to new investors subject to certain exceptions. After the Closing Date, the following categories of shareholders may continue to purchase Fund shares:
•Existing shareholders invested in the Fund on the Closing Date can add to their existing positions.
•Group retirement plans, including 401(k), employer-sponsored 403(b) plans, 457 plans, and defined benefit plans, on recordkeeping platforms offering the Fund as an investment option on the Closing Date may continue to establish new participant accounts in the Fund for those plans.
•Recordkeepers for group retirement plans with accounts established in the Fund prior to the Closing Date may continue to add the Fund to new plans and establish new participant accounts in the Fund for new and existing plans.
•Existing home office discretionary model portfolios centrally managed by broker-dealers, registered investment advisors, or bank trust companies that currently offer the Fund as an investment option and continue to offer it after the Closing Date may establish new participant accounts.
•The Advisor encourages its portfolio managers to invest in the Cohen & Steers Funds Complex and as such, the Fund’s portfolio managers may open new accounts and purchase shares of the Fund.
The Fund reserves the right to modify or limit the above exceptions, or re-open the Fund to new investors at any time. To be eligible to purchase a class of Fund shares, investors must meet the purchase eligibility for the Fund outlined above in addition to any class-specific eligibility requirements described in the Fund’s Prospectus.
Financial intermediaries are responsible for enforcing these restrictions with respect to their investors. The Fund’s ability to monitor financial intermediaries’ enforcement of these restrictions is limited by operational systems and the cooperation of financial intermediaries. In addition, with respect to certain omnibus accounts, the Fund’s ability to monitor is also limited by a lack of information with respect to the underlying shareholder accounts.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR YOUR RECORDS
CSISSPRO-0919

FYI: Money managers that mimic the stock market just became the new titans of the fund-management world.
Funds that track broad U.S. equity indexes hit $4.27 trillion in assets as of Aug. 31, according to research firm Morningstar Inc., giving them more money than stock-picking rivals for the first-ever monthly reporting period. Funds that try to beat the market had $4.25 trillion as of that date.
The passing of the asset crown is the latest chapter in one of the most dramatic transformations in the history of financial markets. In the past decade, nearly $1.36 trillion in net flows were added to U.S. equity mutual funds and exchange-traded funds that mimic market indexes while some $1.32 trillion fled higher-costing actively managed counterparts.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/index-funds-are-the-new-kings-of-wall-street-11568799004?mod=md_mf_news

FYI: Investors want to view websites with clear and understandable information—yet that's not what they're getting from asset management companies, according to new research.
Instead, investors are being fed complex content that takes longer to digest and requires high mental effort to understand, according to research by Visible Thread, with the backing of Edelman Trust Barometer.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/financial-services-ranks-as-least-trusted-industry-due-to-non-transparent-websites-51624.html?print
2019 Asset Management Website Clarity Index:
https://www.visiblethread.com/wp-content/uploads/VisibleThread-2019-Asset-Management-Website-Clarity-Index.pdf

I wasn’t aware “qualifications” are required for publishing financial news & opinion. Mr. Dias appears to be a fee-based financial advisor based in Florida with 12 years experience, but no certifications.
https://money.usnews.com/financial-advisors/advisor/carlos-dias-jr-5315390
@Catch - A week’s stay at his ocean-side condo in Florida in March would be even better than the proverbial steak dinner. Yes, we have on-air “financial advisers” up here pitching annuities. Stay far away.

Although a Kiplinger published document; I find no valid background information for the article writer.
Have you looked at the various links provided?
No FINRA background at all, that I can discover. No pertinent background info of any consequence to money management.
At least he doesn't claim to be certified for anything having to do with providing financial advisement.
If you're able to discover a proper background for this person; please let us know.
I read this as nothing more than a paid advertisement. The only item missing is the "free steak dinner" at the local restaurant.

Thanks @JohnN. This is a provocative article from Kipplinger.
Like most of what appears in the financial press nowadays, a catchy title overstates the substance within. The writer doesn’t quantify the actual number or percentage of retirees who were badly burned by the 07-09 debacle nor is there a stated measure of actual losses incurred. But yep, when the tide began flowing out late in ‘07 many found to their chagrin they’d been swimming somewhat naked.
After cautioning against over-exposure to stocks, cash and bonds, the author tosses out annuities as a possible preventive approach. That’s fruit for further discussion.
My question re annuities would be: Is this a wise time to be buying one in view of the extraordinarily low rates of return on fixed income? I’ll assume that whatever future payout they would provide is very much dependent on the prevailing interest rates at the time of purchase. After all, the annuity provider needs to invest your payment into the same markets most of us have access to through our mutual funds.

A current NPR article is reporting that:
MIT To Settle Suit Alleging It Hurt Workers In 401(k) Plan

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has reached an agreement in principle to settle a lawsuit that alleged that MIT, one of the nation's most prestigious universities, hurt workers in its retirement plan by engaging in an improper relationship with the financial firm Fidelity Investments.
Just days ahead of the start of the trial, MIT and the plaintiffs said in a court filing that they had reached the deal and are asking the court for 45 days in order for the details to be finalized and prepared for consideration by the court.
MIT Accused Of Costing Workers Millions In Cozy Deal With Financial Giant Fidelity
The lawsuit alleged that MIT went against the advice of its own consultants and allowed Fidelity to pack the university's retirement plan with high-fee investment funds that ended up costing employees tens of millions of dollars. In return, the lawsuit said, MIT leveraged millions of dollars in donations from Fidelity.
MIT and Fidelity have said the allegations have no merit.
The lawsuit said Fidelity executives took MIT officials on lavish outings, including an NBA Finals game. Court documents show that in 2015, when the university considered other options, an MIT dean emailed the head of an MIT committee overseeing the plan: "If we're not switching to Vanguard or TIAA Cref, I am going to expect something big and good coming to MIT," according to the court records.
Jerry Schlichter, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said that soon afterwards, "Fidelity donated $5 million to MIT."
In a court filing, MIT said the dean who wrote that email "never had any fiduciary responsibility for the plan."
In a letter to faculty and staff Thursday, MIT Provost Martin Schmidt wrote: "Although MIT believes firmly that it has managed the 401(k) Plan in careful compliance with the law and in the best interests of its participants, the continued cost and distraction of litigation are likely to be significant. In order to avoid that continued drain of MIT resources, we have reached an agreement to settle the dispute."

The preceding is an excerpt from the complete NPR article.

WELL.......
Negative rates are supposed to stimulate the economy, incentivising investment by making it less attractive to hold cash and spurring demand by making credit cheaper. But evidence of the theory working in practice is far from conclusive. Certainly Europe’s bankers are squealing, as they feel margins squeezed by low rates on lending and a reluctance to pass on negative rates to depositors.

Why did Europe promote negative interest rates?
Our Federal Reserve system and Treasury may operate within boundaries that are not available to the ECB (European Central Bank) functions, as the euro area's fiscal and financial rules are not similar. I will not expand this difference here. One may readily discover facts of their choice.
Suffice to note that the U.S. moved to Quantitative Easing, while the Euro Zone remained with a policy of austerity after the market melt in 2008. Many here will recall the rough times in Europe for several years following the melt.

As to investment grade bonds today. IMHO, one can not (yet) invest in bond funds that will allow for the steady eddy yield and pricing from the days of yesteryear; to take one's investment into the future without a care and the feeling of protection against the nasty's. Keeping in mind, that as long as there are buyers, don't be concerned with the yield; as your pricing/capital appreciation will out perform the yield expected.
My own question(s) to these type of bonds, is how long will purchases remain in place; IF the yields continue to trend to the negative zone??? Purchasers being the big investment houses, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds and individuals, etc.
With some of this in mind, this house has not been inclined to purchase investment grade bond fund(s) for any sake of yield; as this is third place in thought. First and second place belong to a cushion against the current political strains globally and what this may also bring for global equity(s). Yes, a protective place generating some yield and more so; since the mini melt in December of 2018, decent price appreciation. Early 2018 found a U.S. equity blip in February and a few rough patches until the mini melt in December. Early equity market tremors? I won't begin to suggest this knowledge; but money continues to run to IG bonds.
IF U.S. yields continue downward for whatever reason(s), what are the impacts?
--- CD's.....the folks who do not and/or will not invest in the markets, and maintain monies in CD's
--- financial institutions.....will they be able to maintain a proper spread (deposits/loans) to obtain a profit?
--- consumer loans.....mortgage, auto, etc.; would consumers take on too much cheap debt?
--- corporate bond issuance..... more or too much debt, and for what purpose?
--- private pension funding
--- insurance company(s) products, including annuities
and more.
I remain with the thought, as from 2009; This Time Is Different, at least for my investing period.
Your thoughts please.
Thank you for allowing my self therapy. :)
Catch

@rforno- like you, I don't consider our cash positions to be an investment position. I believe that this perspective is not widely shared here on MFO.
My wife and I each have both pension income and SS income. This income exceeds our normal expenses by a fair amount, with the result that cash holdings tend to increase over time.
For this reason my spreadsheet keeps separate accounting of designated "cash" positions and investment positions. The investment position aggregate usually does fairly well with respect to the S&P benchmark, but needless to say the cash position income is all but hopeless.
Because of our age (I just turned 80), and not having a real need for investment income at this stage, I've cut back severely on our investment positions, which previously were quite substantial. Essentially the current investment income is probably just about enough to offset inflation on the combined cash/investment positions. The anticipated decline in the investment positions when the next downturn hits will not be enough to threaten our overall financial situation.

Thank you @msf
From Mr. Merriman's web site:
"There’s a lot of money to be made from financial newsletters that give investment advice. But the money comes from selling the newsletters, not from taking the advice.
Literally anybody can start and publish an investment newsletter. The key to success is to have a period of successful predictions that can be promoted as if it’s a sign that the publisher has talent, insight and an accurate handle on future performance.
You can claim almost anything
Despite their slick appearance, many investment newsletters are run from home. It’s easy to start a newsletter. You don’t need a college degree. You don’t need a license. You don’t need a track record. You can claim almost anything you want to as long as you aren’t actually being paid to manage money."
>>> Some of his above would suggest some amount of due diligence, a self code of discovery.
NOTE: I'm surely not in an intellectual position to discredit his years of work and sharing of information; but disappointed with this current write. His newsletter is free, although one may suspect some form of monetizing his work. I'm not inclined to give my time to such an investigation.
Mr. Merriman's web site
Perhaps too much coffee, for me, this A.M.
Take care,
Catch

FYI: For an investor whose story was featured in a best-selling book and an Oscar-winning movie, Michael Burry has kept a surprisingly low profile in recent years.
But it turns out the hero of “The Big Short” has plenty to say about everything from central banks fueling distortions in credit markets to opportunities in small-cap value stocks and the “bubble” in passive investing.
One of his most provocative views from a lengthy email interview with Bloomberg News on Tuesday: The recent flood of money into index funds has parallels with the pre-2008 bubble in collateralized debt obligations, the complex securities that almost destroyed the global financial system.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-04/michael-burry-explains-why-index-funds-are-like-subprime-cdos?srnd=etfs

Overall, a piece with lots of factoids, but no description I can find about how they scored the brokerages or features. Various Kiplinger comments about brokerages are also rather odd.
Here are some weird statements made about E*Trade. I'm not picking on E*Trade in particular, it's just that it was the first brokerage listed.
"More than 3,900 mutual funds you can buy with no sales fee or fee to trade".
It looks like Kiplinger chose this arbitrary number and didn't bother to report actual figures. E*Trade claims over 4,400 NTF funds. Fidelity, which Kiplinger also says offers the same 3,900+ NTF funds appears to offer "just" 3,593, according to its fund screener. Kiplinger says the same of Schwab, though I haven't checked its true figure.
"the highest percentage of no-transaction fee funds with three-star ratings or better from Morningstar."
Does percentage matter? ISTM what is important is the selection (quantity) of high quality funds (I use that term loosely), not the fraction of funds offered that fit that description.
"E*Trade’s Max Rate Checking Account comes with unlimited ATM reimbursements on charges that other financial institutions levy (though you may be subject to charges from the owner/operator of the ATM). "
That's a curious way of saying simply that foreign ATM fees "will automatically be credited to your account."

FYI: Lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer?
August certainly was crazy for the global financial markets, and the outlook is unquestionably hazy as the season unofficially ends with Monday’s Labor Day holiday. Lazy might have been the best investment strategy, however, if that meant setting and forgetting a diversified stock-and-bond portfolio.
August saw wild swings in the U.S. markets, buffeted by the three Ts: tweets, trade, and Treasuries. Through Thursday, the SPDR S&P 500 exchange-traded fund (ticker: SPY), which tracks the U.S. large-capitalization market, had a total return for August of minus 2.85%, according to Morningstar data. That surely stings most readers.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/when-the-stock-market-is-this-crazy-you-should-just-invest-lazy-51567213413?mod=hp_INTERESTS_funds&refsec=hp_INTERESTS_funds

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
August 29, 2019
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Volatile U.S trade relations with China are immediately reflected in the financial markets but what about the economic impact? Could they push the U.S. into recession? On our website this week we have a podcast on the topic with leading global economist and strategist Nick Sargen.
On the television program this Labor Day weekend we are revisiting a recent Great Investor show with a global value manager. He is a long time holder of Berkshire Hathaway, even though the stock has badly lagged the S&P 500 so far this year. It’s basically flat vs. the market’s around 15% gain. On a total return basis Berkshire’s stock has trailed for the past decade. Berkshire doesn’t pay a dividend. The S&P 500 does which makes a difference. Berkshire’s stock has risen by nearly 260% versus the market’s more than 300% total return advance in the decade ended in 2018.
Despite Berkshire’s stunning record since 1965, 21% compounded annualized gains, this is not the first time that the company’s shares have underperformed the market for a decade. It has happened several times in recent years.
Berkshire has outperformed the market by double digits in every trailing ten year period since 1978, but it hasn’t had a double- digit advantage since 2002, and in recent years it has underperformed the market in three ten-year spans.
Even Warren Buffett himself admitted the company’s glory days of outperformance might be over. In an interview in the Financial Times his response to the question: if Berkshire would be a better investment than the S&P 500 he said “I think the financial result would be very close to the same.” He went on to say “…if you want to join something that may have a tiny expectation of better (performance) than the S&P, I think we may be about the safest.”
At a $507 billion market capitalization and few places to deploy it in enough size to make a discernible difference to the bottom line, is Berkshire just too big?
Over the years Berkshire Hathaway has benefitted from sizable stock buybacks in some of its major holdings. In Berkshire’s 2018 annual report Buffett cited American Express where its holdings “remained unchanged over the past eight years,” but our “ownership increased from 12.6% to 17.9% because of repurchases…”
In the same his 2018 Letter to Shareholders, Buffett said the company itself “will be a significant repurchaser of its shares…at prices… below our estimate of intrinsic value.”
What else does Buffett have up his sleeve to enhance shareholder returns?
The company has never purchased a tech stock. It recently bought Amazon and Buffett heaped praise on CEO Jeff Bezos. Berkshire has also never paid a dividend. Could that be next?
We’ll hear from Tom Russo, an avid student of Buffett’s style of value investing with no intention of changing his approach. Russo is Managing Partner of investment advisory firm, Gardner Russo & Gardner where he oversees around $11 billion including his Semper Vic Partners fund which he launched in 1984 after hearing Buffett address his class at Stanford. Semper Vic has generated 14% compound annual returns since inception, handily outperforming the S&P 500’s 11% returns.
The global value manager focuses on owning a small group of exceptionally well managed brand name firms - 19 at last count - with dominant, almost unassailable positions in their mostly consumer-oriented businesses and then holding them pretty much forever. Berkshire Hathaway has consistently been one of his largest positions.
On this week’s show I asked Russo, given Buffett’s modest expectations for the stock’s future performance, if he is rethinking the position.
Don’t forget, if you are away this weekend, it’s easy to take WEALTHTRACK with you! The WEALTHTRACK podcast is available on TuneIn, Stitcher, and SoundCloud as well as iTunes and Spotify.
Thank you for watching. Have a great Labor Day weekend, and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
Best regards,
Consuelo

Nick Sargen Podcast:
https://wealthtrack.com/trade-war-impact-the-markets-economy/

@Derf- No purchases as far as I can recall. Just held on and hoped for the best. I'm really a financial coward at heart. But we had just retired, didn't yet have a good feel for how our income stream would shape up, and were afraid to risk more because who knew how that mess was going to turn out?
Remember also the role that Ben Bernanke and the Fed played in the recovery. We tend to think of that as "normal" action now, but it was historically unique, and there were powerful conservative forces militantly opposed to his efforts. No one had a clue how that whole thing was going to play out- it looked like '29 all over again.

FYI: It's tough when a fund's top selling point is we lost less money than the index.
But that's the strategy one buys into with a defensive mutual fund like a balanced fund. The balanced fund is a portfolio that holds both stocks and bonds so that investors can get both growth and income in one vehicle.
Most financial advisors recommend a portfolio of both stocks and bonds for diversification. That's because stocks and bonds typically moved in opposite directions. When stocks rise, bonds fall in price, and when stocks fall, bonds rise in price. The theory is one asset should temper the losses in the other, resulting in lower risk and volatility.
So, if you want diversification, but don't feel like researching a whole bunch of funds to make sure you have the appropriate asset allocation, you can buy a balanced fund and get the whole thing in one package, such as the Hennessy Equity and Income Fund (HEIFX).
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lcarrel/2019/08/29/hennessey-fund-is-well-positioned-for-choppy-market-offering-lower-risk-and-volatility/#956d3da7accc
M* Snapshot HEIFX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/heifx/quote

I hope there is a correction. A big one. Seasonally, September is often a weak month for equities.
I jumped in a 'tad' on the down 800-point day last Friday -- because I figured there would be follow-through down days, and did not want to go "all in" in a single day. But, despite all the financial bloggers who suffer from Trump Derangement syndrome, the buyers came right back in to bid up stocks. --- Including UP 250 points today, the day after the article provided by the OP). Sigh! --Too much optimism can be very depressing!
Frankly, I like select divd stocks (not quite at these prices, but if/when we see some pricing weakness) with a sub-2% 3-year Treasury. In fact, I like them more, as other investors become more pessimistic.... But I really need to see some follow-through ACTION on the pessimism. "Talking gloomy" is one thing; panic-selling is what we need. But, maybe we will finally get there in September. Hey, I'm a "glass is half full" kinda guy.
In a sustained depressed interest-rate environment, quality enterprises may have an opportunity to refinance even more debt at even lower debt-servicing costs. A more slack employment market would ameliorate wage pressures, and companies might "clean house" on some unnecessary costs that have crept into corporate P/Ls over the past 11 years. I see it every day at my "day job". And my employer is just like a lot of other big companies -- fat, happy, distracted with "stakeholders" & "sustainability" & millenial-friendly "happy talk" media nonsense.
But a crash is coming. It's been coming for 11 years. We've had crashes before. We will have many more. It's just part of the business cycle.

I agree with @rforno on both financial preferred and quantumonline.com. I also prefer to hold individual preferreds although I also hold a CEF preferred fund.

FYI: “Preferreds” are one of the best performing investments, yet many investors still avoid them.
While it’s no surprise that US stocks are the highest performing stocks in the world in 2019, who would have ever thought that those boring, old preferred stocks would have outperformed small & medium capitalized stocks before dividends?
In fact, to students of financial history, the success of these stocks is not a big surprise.
Since over a century ago, beginning in the year 1900, preferred stocks have been by far the best performing income investment. As the following chart & table shows, there has rarely been a timeframe when preferreds have not outperformed corporate or treasury bonds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kennethwinans/2019/08/27/how-does-a-6-yield-with-a-tax-break-sound-try-preferred-stocks/#28ab22ad6f0d
Quantum Online Com:
http://www.quantumonline.com/QuickStart.cfm

FYI: In constructing financial plans, I tell clients that the second most important decision they will make is to set the overall riskiness of their portfolio by deciding upon an asset allocation. I’ll disclose the most important decision at the end.
As a financial planner, I’ve been trained to administer what’s called a “risk profile questionnaire” to new clients to determine how much of their portfolio should be in more volatile asset classes like stocks. One of the best such questionnaires I’ve seen is this survey from Vanguard. It asks questions about how clients feel about risk and when they will need their money, with the answers supposedly determining how much risk to take.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/08/26/why-risk-profile-questionnaires-dont-work