This is going to be a hit or miss post, since I've been out and about traveling and won't be caught up for some time. Some offhand thoughts:
"If Bengen 'concluded that a 4% drawdown rate resulted in certain survival', he was wrong" and "The article is dominated by references to Wade Pfau observations. He too is a very strong advocate of Monte Carlo simulations to help arriving at retirement decisions. "
The NYTimes article has a graphic with three other spending models by Pfau. All three show 100% survival over thirty years (worst case shows money remaining for all models). That includes a model with a constant (inflation adjusted) drawdown amount.
Yet the simple Monte Carlo tools advocated (based on mean and standard deviation inputs) intrinsically contradict this - they are built on the premise that failure is always possible (since they say that a portfolio can lose value year after year after year after ...). Does that mean that Pfau, like Bengen, was also wrong in concluding certain survival?
A problem is that by design, these simple tools are unable to conclude that survival is certain. Regardless of inputs. If you build a conclusion (failure is always possible) into a tool, you've rigged the results. You can't use these tools to "prove" that 100% success is impossible. They're unable to say anything but.
It's fine to use random number generators (aka Monte Carlo) to "run" models many times and see what outcomes might result. The problem is not in how models are used (trial and error - random numbers), but with the models themselves. Unfortunately these tools conflate the creation of the models with the Monte Carlo running of the models to generate a range of possible outcomes. Don't confuse a criticism of these tools with a criticism of Monte Carlo simulations.
These tools create simplistic models that usually assume each year's market's performance is independent and that returns are normally distributed (bell curve).
But data suggest that stock market performance is a leading indicator of business cycles. Thus stock market performance is itself cyclic (not independent from year to year) albeit with an upward bias.
"stocks as a whole move in advance of the economy" = AAII Journal, Aug 2003
As to the bond market, the trivial Monte Carlo models assume that nominal returns are independent of inflation. The Fischer hypothesis suggests the opposite.
"The Fisher hypothesis is that, in the long run, inflation and nominal interest rates move together." http://moneyterms.co.uk/fisher-effect/
The first paragraph by Pfau in his Forbes column says that the models need to include correlations - something that's antithetic to simplistic free Monte Carlo tools that assume independence of inputs in building their models.
His penultimate paragraph states simply that: "the results of Monte Carlo simulations are only as good as the input assumptions, ... Monte Carlo simulations can be easily adjusted to account for changing realities for financial markets."
It's certainly easy from a mechanical perspective to adjust the models (e.g. by changing the mean return for bonds). What's not easy at all is figuring out what adjustments to make. That gets right back to the results being "only as good as the input assumptions", or as I wrote before, GIGO.
Again quoting Pfau: "Many financial planning assumptions are based on historical returns; however, these historical returns may not be relevant in the future."
https://www.onefpa.org/journal/Pages/MAR17-Planning-for-a-More-Expensive-Retirement.aspx
At best, even if a model is good and analysis sound, all you're going to get is a sense of whether you're saving enough (i.e. what MikeM wrote). It's of less help during retirement because, as hank noted, extraordinary events happen.
I'm wondering who the unnamed "professionals in this field" are. Or even what "this field" is. But for the record - I've never taken a statistics course in my life. I'm just an individual investor like most people here, albeit one who did once ace a course in writing and research.

FYI: Legendary economist and financial thought leader, Burton Malkiel shares investment lessons learned more than four decades after writing his classic book, A Random Walk Down Wall Street.
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthtrack.com/malkiel-financial-thought-leader/

Thanks @ Mike & Ol Skeet for getting this back on track. Agree it's a good article. I view most anything financial in the NYT times with a healthy dose of skeptism. They're great at a lot of things - but financial analysis and reporting isn't their forte. To the crux of the issue: I think where you run into problems is (1) trying to formulate a simple one size fits all approach to retirement drawdowns and/or (2) assuming the next 25 years will be like the last 25 years (interest rates, inflation, equity valuations, etc.).
I can't relate to the central question of how to survive "X" number of years on "X" number of dollars invested. Reason: I enjoy both a defined benefit pension with a partial COL rider and also a decent SS income stream. And, supplementary health insurance through retirement plan as well. Conceivably, these would provide for basic living expenses - though it would be a very "spartan" lifestyle without travel or other things that make retirement enjoyable.
In my highly atypical instance, even after taking distributions, retirement savings have roughly doubled over the nearly 20 years since retirement (albeit in nominal dollar terms only). At the same time, more than half of that has now been placed under the Roth umbrella, whereas at the time of retirement none was. Much of the reason for the increase is that the money was left largely undisturbed during the first 10 years.
As far as the article's mention that withdrawals are not linear or equal every year - I couldn't agree more. There have been years when I needed to take a larger sum - say as a sizable down payment on a new car or for unexpected home repairs - and other years when I've needed very little.
I don't envy those without a pension or other solid income stream in retirement. Not everyone would be satisfied with a somewhat spartan lifestyle either. As I look at the markets over the past 10-20 years, I'd not be eager risking a large retirement nest egg with an aggressive approach in retirement. Lots of warning signs IMHO. But, no one really knows. As I said at the start, the problem with these mathematical models is that the next 25 years could be markedly different than the last 25 - as others, notably msf, have tried to explain.

" A fellow named Bill Bengen initially used that [Monte Carlo] calculation discipline when he concluded that a 4% annual drawdown rate resulted in high portfolio survival odds for an extended retirement period."
Not exactly. He concluded that a 4% drawdown rate resulted in certain survival, not merely a high probability of survival: "no client enjoys less than about 35 years before his retirement money is used up." Survival is typically taken in financial publications to mean lasting 30 years.
More importantly, for the most part he used actual not statistical data. He looked at rolling 50 year periods, starting with 1926 (i.e. 1926-1976) and ending with the 50 year period 1976-2016. Monte Carlo had nothing to do with this.
You may well ask: what "actual" data did he use for years that were in his future (his paper was published in 1994)? Well here he did use statistical data. But of the simplest kind, again no Monte Carlo simulation. He merely "extrapolated the missing years at the average return rates of 10.3 percent for stocks, 5.2 percent for bonds, and 3.0 percent for inflation - a concession to the 'averaging' approach, but one that was unavoidable."
Bengen used actual returns over multiyear spans (i.e. he did not assume that year-to-year returns were random and independent). He filled in missing data by using constant annual returns (i.e. no variation of returns). Everything Monte Carlo is not.
Quotes are from Bengen's original paper, cited in the NYTimes article linked to by MJG. See Figure 1(b) in that paper for how many years a 4% drawdown rate would last if started in any year from 1926 to 1976.

Hi Guys,
You all know I'm forever suggesting Monte Carlo analyses when addressing the retirement decision. It works. But that's not just me talking. The financial planning industry has been talking that same talk for at least several decades. A fellow named Bill Bengen initially used that calculation discipline when he concluded that a 4% annual drawdown rate resulted in high portfolio survival odds for an extended retirement period. Here is a Link that updates some of his initial thinking on this matter:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/your-money/some-new-math-for-the-4-percent-retirement-rule.html
Enjoy! Note that Mr. Bengen now feels that a more generous 4.5% drawdown rate is portfolio survival safe. With a little more attention to market conditions, more recent studies are currently suggesting that a 5% drawdown results in acceptable portfolio survival odds. However, note that these are just statistical studies with many assumptions embedded in the analyses so be cautious. Risk at the 5% drawdown schedule must be higher than at the 4% level. That's obvious. The final decision is always yours alone. It must include your comfort level; your sleeping well each and every night. Take care. Sleep well.
Best Regards

I find Cinnamond a lesson in the difficulty of market timing, or of assuming that a measure that worked in one economic cycle will work just as well in the next. The investing world is littered with investors who got one or two big calls right, then keep on making big calls... BUT I have enormous respect for him for quitting when he still had a lot of AUM. For a manager to say, "I don't understand this market, so I'm giving my investors back their money and getting out" is the kind of humility and integrity that would make the financial world (and the world as a whole) a better place if it were more widespread.

FYI: The bond market is flashing warning signals that bad times may be ahead for the stock market and the economy.
That is probably not what most people want to hear — stock investors especially. In the first half of the year, after all, stocks have performed spectacularly. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index returned 9 percent through June, churning out gains so regularly that it may seem churlish to note that clouds are appearing on the horizon.
Yet like a long-range forecast about a possible storm, an old and trusted financial indicator is telling us that trouble may be looming.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/your-money/clouds-are-forming-over-the-bond-market.html

@LewisBraham: its been an odd ride with Bruce, hasn't it? I say this as someone who is a current FAIRX shareholder. Believe it or not, I've actually been more concerned by Bruce's personal qualities than his investment approach per se.
There was the phase when Bruce talked up betting on the jockey and the horse, and actively asked shareholders on calls (and in letters) to recommend jockeys. That felt a little odd to me, but I held on.
Somewhere around that time, Bruce made a huge short-term investment in PFE, before they switched to a better "jockey". The thesis was that PFE was cash-heavy, and therefore could play a "merchant bank of Venice" role. Indeed, after PFE switched jockeys, they did enjoy a nice uptick in performance. So, Bruce may have been a victim of "premature accumulation" as he likes to say. Those in the know always chuckle when Bruce uses that line.
Then there was the departure of two analysts who went on to found Goodhaven. About that time, Barrons (or a similar publication, but maybe it was Vanity Fair) had a damning piece on some of the bizarre decisions Bruce made with respect to hiring staff of questionable investing and business backgrounds. I should have punted on FAIRX then. I guess the M* "OMG Manager of the Millenium" award should have been a tip-off, but I nurtured myself on the hype.
Then there was the period when Bruce seemed to be practically tripping over himself to appear on any financial / news segment that would have him. Bruce's oft-repeated rationale was: "...the best way to communicate with shareholders...". Which is hooey, because he thereafter adopted a stilted, pre-canned conference call format. On those calls, a few of which were taped, you'd swear Bruce was reading from a teleprompter.
Now we have the "liquidity risk" stories that pop up here and there in the financial press. Yes, journalists need a story, etc., etc., but Bruce should have realized that chasing hot-money chasers creates a lot of fair weather friends.
In general, I have no problem with buy and hold, nor deep value approaches. But the other stuff doesn't mix well with the humility and equanimity that I think are required to succeed in this paradigm. Bruce might prove to be another object lessons that brilliant investors and analysts do not necessarily make good fund managers.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1496315/000116204417000567/grandprixfundsupplement.htm
497 1 grandprixfundsupplement.htm
GRAND PRIX INVESTORS TRUST
(the “Trust”)
566 West Lancaster Blvd., Suite #1
Lancaster, CA 93534
GRAND PRIX INVESTORS FUND
Supplement dated June 29, 2017 to the Grand Prix Investors Fund’s Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated December 1, 2017
______________________________________________________________________
The Board of Trustees of Grand Prix Investors Trust (the “Trust”) has determined that it is in the best interests of the Grand Prix Investors Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders to close the Fund effective July 28, 2017 (“Liquidation Date”).
Effective immediately, the Grand Prix Investors Fund will not accept any new investments, and will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Grand Prix Investors Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents until all shares have been redeemed. Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
Accordingly, the prospectus has been amended:
References to Grand Prix Investors Fund. All references to the Fund in the Trust’s Registration Statement are deleted effective as of June 29, 2017.
Suspension of Sales. Effective immediately, the Fund will no longer accept orders to buy shares of the Fund from any new investors or existing shareholders.
Prior to July 28, 2017, you may redeem your investment in the Fund, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT EXCHANGED OR REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE GRAND PRIX INVESTORS FUND PRIOR TO JULY 28, 2017 WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED 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 the Fund at 1‐800‐453-6556.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated December 1, 2016, which provides information that you should know about the Grand Prix Investors Fund, and should be retained for future reference. These documents are available upon request and without charge by calling the Fund at 1‐ 800‐453-6556.
______________________________________________________________________
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
#

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1527428/000158064217003629/arrowcommodity_497e.htm
497 1 arrowcommodity_497e.htm 497
ARROW COMMODITY STRATEGY FUND
CLASS A SHARES: CSFFX
CLASS C SHARES: CSFTX
INSTITUTIONAL CLASS SHARES: CSFNX
(a series of Arrow Investments Trust)
Supplement dated June 27, 2017 to
the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated December 1, 2016
The Board of Trustees of Arrow Investments Trust (the “Board”) has determined, based on the recommendation of the Fund’s adviser, that, with respect to the Arrow Commodity Strategy Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Arrow Investments Trust, it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on July 28, 2017.
Effective June 28, 2017, the Fund will not accept any purchases and will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund may begin liquidating its portfolio and may invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
After June 28, 2017 and prior to July 28, 2017, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. No redemption fee or contingent deferred sales load will be charged on any redemption or exchange. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
Arrow Investment Advisors, LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser, serves as investment adviser to several other mutual funds in the Trust. As discussed in the Fund’s prospectus, you may exchange your Fund shares for shares of the same Class of another fund in the fund complex advised by Arrow Investment Advisors, LLC (an “Arrow Fund”). Exchanges are made at net asset value. Except as stated herein, exchanges are subject to the terms applicable to purchases of an Arrow Fund’s shares as set forth in the applicable fund’s prospectus. An exchange of Fund shares to another Arrow Fund will be treated as a sale for federal income tax purposes.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO JULY 28, 2017 WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED 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 DIRECTLY OR THE FUNDS AT 1-877-277-6933.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
This Supplement and the existing Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information dated December 1, 2016, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. The Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information dated December 1, 2016, have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund at 1-877-277-6933.

New Century Capital Portfolio
New Century Balanced Portfolio
New Century International Portfolio
New Century Alternative Strategies Portfolio
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/838802/000139834417007945/fp0026390_497.htm
497 1 fp0026390_497.htm NEW CENTURY PORTFOLIOS - 497E
Filed Pursuant to Rule 497(e)
1933 Act File No. 33-24041
1940 Act File No. 811-5646
NEW CENTURY PORTFOLIOS
(the “Trust”)
Supplement dated June 26, 2017 to the Trust’s
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated March 1, 2017
On June 15, 2017, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Trust, based upon the recommendation of Weston Financial Group, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Trust, and having considered the interests of the shareholders of the Trust, voted to recommend that the shareholders adopt an Agreement and Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) to close and liquidate the Trust. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interest of the Trust and its shareholders that the Trust be closed and liquidated effective as of the close of business on September 29, 2017. The Trust has called a special meeting of shareholders to be held in the offices of the Trust at 10:00 a.m. EST on Tuesday, August 22, 2017, to vote on the proposed Plan.
The Board recommends approval of the proposed Plan, which determines the manner in which the Trust will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Trust’s liquidation, the Trust will be closed to new purchases effective as of the close of business on June 30, 2017. However, (i) any dividends or distributions declared to shareholders of the Trust after June 30, 2017, and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on September 29, 2017 will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Trust unless a shareholder has requested that such distributions be paid in cash, and (ii) investments received from existing Automatic Investment Programs (an “AIP”) will be accepted by the Trust through September 1, 2017. If the Plan is approved at the special shareholders meeting, shareholders with an AIP should arrange to direct their contributions to another investment alternative of their choosing. Results of the special meeting of shareholders will be posted on the Trust’s website on August 23, 2017 at www.newcenturyportfolios.com.
Although the Trust will be closed to new purchases as of June 30, 2017, you may redeem your shares of the Trust at any time as provided in the Prospectus. Please note, however, that if the Plan is approved, the Trust will be liquidating and distributing its assets no later than the close of business on September 29, 2017. Redemption requests received immediately preceding the September 29th liquidation may be honored by the delivery of the liquidation proceeds to the shareholder.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Trust has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on September 29, 2017, the effective time of the liquidation, your shares will be redeemed, and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the Trust as of September 29, 2017, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of Trust shares, liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax adviser for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
All routine expenses incurred in connection with the usual and customary operations of the Trust (including brokerage commissions associated with the sale of portfolio securities) will be charged to the Trust, however, expenses incurred in connection with the consideration and approval of the proposed Plan and expenses outstanding on and after the time of liquidation will be paid by the Adviser.
Please retain this supplement with your Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.

Well, there are so many global machines doing all sorts of stuff, all of the time; but you may find something of value with the write, whether you agree with any of the words or data.
http://www.businessinsider.com/next-recession-likely-caused-by-financial-crisis-says-bis-2017-6

Brown's analysis ignores the role human capital or job security play into one's portfolio. A young person who has no job security and little saved should actually be more conservative investment-wise than someone older to maintain for instance an emergency fund in case of job loss. Jobs are much less stable today than in the past in general, so some conservative behavior may be warranted. Young people also may want to invest in their human capital by getting an advanced professional degree instead of investing in their financial portfolio. Would you tell for instance a young future medical student to invest more in stocks or pay their tuition and invest the remainder conservatively?

@Sven

I simply don't see how an actor have anything to do with financial advising.

And what do women in bikinis have to do with eating burgers at Carl's Jr. or drinking Budweiser?

I remember him well and my wife thought he was cute. I hope my comment was mis-constured as answering to your comment. I simply don't see how an actor have anything to do with financial advising.

@Crash
You asked: "What might people advise me, then, if my chief consideration is for monthly dividend income? PONDX pays .05 cents, PTIAX pays .10 cents to .11 cents."
>>>The question is: Is the monthly dividend income something you want now or are these monies inside an IRA from which you do not currently have any distribution to you?
Lastly, for the 2 funds in question; these are the current 30 day SEC yields:
PONDX = 3.91%
PTIAX = 5.38%
Both of these yields are subject to change, yes?

***30 day SEC yield calculation method
The monetary performance value of the 2 funds here, from my previous post beginning at Aug. 31, 2010 for $3,000 invested is:
PTIAX becomes $4,434
PONDX becomes $5,235
The above $ numbers are reinvestment of all distributions and price appreciation.
Regards,
Catch

FYI: This is backwards. It’s also the reason God sent financial advisors into the world.
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/06/23/opposite-day/

FYI: Investors have been warned about overvalued markets basically since the start of this stock market recovery. Some people are scared of above average valuations. Others simply choose to ignore them. And still others use them as scare tactics to sell financial product or newsletters. While you can’t control what the current market valuations are you can control what you will do about them. Here’s a piece I wrote for Bloomberg on your options as an investor in an overvalued market.
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2017/06/how-to-invest-in-an-overvalued-market/

@Chinfist: you did not ask me, but you could not do any better than FNMIX. I've been in EM bonds since 2010. I missed the party in '09, when EM bonds zoomed upward in value as the world's "leaders" implemented steps to ameliorate the effects of the Financial Crash which they were responsible for, by not leading.

FYI: While much of the financial services industry has been fretting for the past few years over how to compete in the age of digital-advice platforms, The Vanguard Group Inc. appears to have cracked the code in a steady climb to more than $65 billion under management on its two-year-old robo.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20170620/FREE/170629993/vanguard-rides-robo-advice-wave-to-65b-in-assets