Here is the response I received from T. Rowe Price after inquiring where the quarterly fund commentary sections went on their website:
"I regret to inform you that that the commentary that was once found when clicking on the formerly labeled "Management/Commentary" tab has been removed for each fund. After careful consideration and research, we found that the tab did not receive enough visits to warrant keeping the commentary when combined with the knowledge that the commentary was never timely or 100% up-to-date despite our best efforts. We are working on developing a more robust experience for our shareholders to utilize in the future.
In the interim, we believe our T. Rowe Price Insights page will provide you with some of the information you may be looking for when it comes to investments, the markets & economy, and retirement & financial planning. These various pages are updated regularly with commentary and articles from specific investment professionals."
Very disappointing - I like to read a fund manager's commentary on how the fund performed, positioning, outlook, etc. each quarter.

FYI: Bank of America Merrill Lynch told its financial advisers Tuesday to halt the sale of mutual funds in brokerage-based individual retirement accounts, months before the Labor Department's new fiduciary regulation takes effect.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161101/FREE/161109984?template=printart

FYI: TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. is the latest custodian to launch a low-cost direct-to-consumer robo-advice platform to attract clients who don't want to pay more for human help with financial planning and investing.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161101/FREE/161109994?template=printart

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/889188/000119312516752839/d262690d497.htm
497 1 d262690d497.htm FORM 497
FORWARD FUNDS
Supplement dated October 31, 2016
to the Salient EM Corporate Debt Fund Investor Class and Institutional Class Prospectus, Salient EM Corporate Debt Fund Class C and Advisor Class Prospectus and Salient EM Corporate Debt Fund Statement of Additional Information each dated May 1, 2016, as supplemented
NOTICE OF LIQUIDATION OF SALIENT EM CORPORATE DEBT FUND
On October 18, 2016, the Board of Trustees of Forward Funds (the “Trust”), including all of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trust (as that term is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended), approved the liquidation of the Salient EM Corporate Debt Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust. The Fund will be liquidated pursuant to a Board-approved Plan of Liquidation on or around February 28, 2017 (the “Liquidation Date”). On the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute pro rata to its respective shareholders of record as of the close of business on the business day preceding the Liquidation Date all of the assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest, except for cash, bank deposits or cash equivalents in an estimated amount necessary to (i) discharge any unpaid liabilities and obligations of the Fund on the Fund’s books on the Liquidation Date, including, but not limited to, income dividends and capital gains distributions, if any, payable through the Liquidation Date, and (ii) pay such contingent liabilities as the officers of the Trust deem appropriate.
As the Liquidation Date approaches, the Fund will likely increase its holdings in cash and cash equivalents in anticipation of redemption requests and liquidation. As a result, the Fund may invest without limit in money market securities, U.S. Government obligations, and short-term debt securities. This could have a negative effect on the Fund’s ability to achieve its investment objective.
Certain investors may expect to receive an additional communication from their financial advisor or intermediary concerning this announcement.
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLANNED LIQUIDATION, EFFECTIVE NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 10, 2017, SHARES OF THE SALIENT EM CORPORATE DEBT FUND WILL CEASE TO BE OFFERED FOR PURCHASE TO NEW INVESTORS OR EXISTING INVESTORS (EXCEPT THROUGH REINVESTED DIVIDENDS) OR BE AVAILABLE FOR EXCHANGES FROM OTHER FUNDS OF THE TRUST.
PLEASE KEEP THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
****

Edmond,
Thanks very much. Sweet analysis. Especially #3 and your conclusion/personal status. This question was not for me per se but for my 76yo widowed mother. A financial adviser was suggesting going up on equities. He is sniffing around for business and I like to be logical. I could never have been as cogent in defending staying the course. Thanks again, Mike

FYI: Here’s another chart to scare you this Halloween: Foreign investors, who now represent 39 percent of funds dedicated to the U.S. high-yield fixed-income market, have become ever-more sensitive to the asset class’s performance since the financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/bond-tourists-expose-soft-underbelly-of-america-s-high-yield-market

FYI: Seven top asset managers this week reported a total of $50 billion in third-quarter net redemptions, most of it from active funds, company filings show. The biggest losers: Franklin Resources Inc. with $22.1 billion, AllianceBernstein with $15.3 billion and Waddell & Reed Financial Inc. at $4.9 billion.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/asset-managers-bleed-50-billion-as-industry-crisis-deepens

John, I got into the Schwab-robo in April, 2015. duranal sounds like he or she did a nice comparison to help him choose. Me, I already had my IRA at Schwab so I wasn't going to open another account when it was so easy to click some buttons in my existing account to make it happen. Couple comments off the top of my head:
- the Schwab questionnaire that is meant to look at your age and risk tolerance in order to place you at the "appropriate" equity weighting was annoying. I wanted this to be a 60% equity weighted portfolio, but after answering the questions it had me less than 50%. The local Schwab financial adviser I work with didn't like the system either, so we decided to just fudge the answers until we got the mix I wanted. I opened my account the 1st week the Intelligent portfolio was introduced, so maybe they changed that aspect.
- I don't really mind the cash element. A lot of articles I read at the start didn't like the idea, but I saw it as a buffer that could play out better than bonds over the next few years. My cash portion is 10%.
- the portfolio is weighted heavier than I would have expected international and EM. That did not fair well mid-way through 2015 and I questioned the move when returns faltered. Since then returns have been good to very good in my opinion. My portfolio is up 9.84% YTD and about 5.7% over 1 year.
- I also liked the idea of investing in a diversified portfolio where someone else is watching diversification, balancing and reinvesting the dividends. With it, there is never the erg to buy the new hot fund or move things around at just the wrong time (which I was pretty good at).
- I didn't turn my entire IRA into the robo. I did 1/2. I still like the challenge of building my own portfolio and watching the results. If anything, the robo process has taught me build it, watch it but don't tinker. I believe everything I've read now about investors shooting themselves in the foot trying to out think the system is true. Most of us lose money doing this.
Good luck with your decision.

FYI: Jeffrey Gundlach, chief executive of DoubleLine Capital, believes investors and financial advisers should not get too comfortable with the recent pattern of Federal Reserve monetary policy.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161025/FREE/161029934?template=printart

In response to BobC's above question.
Below is my best guess, thoughts and comments.
Not speaking for American Funds but from the perspective of one of their mutual fund investors I am thinking it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to move to only a one share class fund firm due to, the no doubt, many revenue sharing agreements they have in place with the many other financial firms they have developed relationships with through the years. Thus the large number of fund share classes necessary to serve this large and broad base of investors that they now serve through many venues.
I am an A fund share holder that paid a one time front load commission (through the years) and, with this, I received nva exchange prividledges among their A share funds without having to pay another sales charge. These sales charges, from my memory, ranged form 3.5% to 5.75% depending on the fund I was buying without applying other discounts. I'm thinking the brokerage wrap accounts that many firms have moved to that have on going fees associated with these type accounts and that I have the better deal. I have seen annual wrap fee schedules of better than 1.5% for some wrap accounts with most being around the 1.0% range and a few back of that.
I have owned some American Funds for better than thiry years with some funds that I now own were owned for years by my parents before being passed to me through gift and inheritance transfers. When you consider the number of years these funds have been owned the sales load spread over the years owned is very small. Now an on going annual account wrap and/or advisor retainer fee paid over these same years would be very, very large.
I'm thinking long term investors need to determine which route will be the best for them while I can undestand some short term investors might find more favor in the wrap fee account who wish to move in and out of their positions and trade a lot. There are some restrictions on how many nav transfers I can make over a given time span. These restrictions are designed to prevent a lot of in and out trading but do allow for repositioning my portfolio from time-to-time.
Also, know American Funds is not the only family of funds that I am invested with as they are mostly a large cap value shop. Some of the other fund families are Alger, Alps, Blackrock, Columbia, Delaware, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, First Investors, Franklin, Guggenheim, Invesco, Hotchkis & Wiley, J P Morgan, Loomis Sayles, Lord Abbett, Neuberger & Berman, Principal, Prudential, Sun America, Thornburg, Virtus and perhaps a few others that I missed. All of these fund families allow for nav exchanges within their family of funds so my cost to move around within their family of funds and reposition my portfolio from time-to-time is at no cost to me.
From my thinking there are no ongoing annual wrap account fees and/or advisor sales commissions, for me, as my sales charges have already been paid except for the small 12b-1 fee that applies on some of the funds I own.
Yep, I'm thining I've got the better deal over wrap fee based accounts and fee based advisors who charge annual retainer fees.
Old_Skeet

From the looks of it, Jaffe was just reading a line off the Natixis PR, which is a summary of what Hank observed was not a rigorous study.
Hank also caught onto the fact that both the survey Jaffe was referencing and the earlier survey that MJG linked to had polled advisors, not investors. However, upon reading the PR, one discovers that the investor expectations figure reported (8.5% above inflation) did not even come from that recent advisor survey data but from an older data set. So Jaffe was sloppy in his reading or his reporting in saying that a recent study reported this. (The info was in the PR for the survey, but not from the survey itself.)
Here are the PR pages for the current reports :
Natixis 2016 Individual Investor Survey (data collected Feb/Mar 2016, report May 24, 2016. full paper here)
Natixis 2016 Financial Advisor Survey (US data collected July 2016; PR dated September 28, 2016.)

Hi. Hank,
I certainly do agree with much of what has been posted on this exchange, especially your last posting. On this topic, with the same prime time players (Jaffe, Natixis), this is the second time around the horn for you. I'll provide a Link a little later.
Just like no financial advisor is created equal, no financial writers are created equal either. And separate columns composed by each writer are not equal. Brilliance is hard to maintain on any timescale.
This Jaffe column might not belong on the brilliant side of the scoring, but it is not a dud either. Jaffe has been using the Natixis work for a long time. For example, you commented on a similar column about two years ago. Here is the internal Link to the column and your comments:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/13442/chuck-jaffe-proof-most-investors-are-clueless-david-giunta-pres-natixis-global-asset-management
It is not surprising that Natixis uses a hired firm to conduct their surveys. That's a common practice. We do the same when we hire mutual fund managers to fill our portfolios with companies of their choosing. Nothing unusual about interpreting results generated by an outfit that you hired. Natixis uses Core Data to do their survey legwork. Here is a Link that describes the Core Data organization and some of their talent:
http://www.coredataresearch.com/about/our-approach/
Core Data seems to have the capabilities to do worldwide surveys. It doesn't disturb me one whit that Natixis does its own interpretation of the data collected.
I certainly agree with you that the summary conclusions you listed are mundane if they were the only conclusions or stats presented. But they were not. Just about each page of the white paper provided some detailed statistics associated with both advisors and their clients.
I also agree that the referenced white paper was designed for financial advisors, and not for private investors. That does not diminish the value of the surveys. These surveys still identify shortfalls in both advisor and individual investor thinking and planning.
This takes us back to the Jaffe article that prompted this hot exchange: investors "are Probably Way Too Optimistic About Your Investment Returns". Most of the postings don't argue this assertion. In any final analyses, that's what it is all about. A casual charge that Jaffe and Natixis are BSers is far too extreme. Certainly any analysis or article has shortfalls. Exceptions simply do not exist.
Sorry for the delay in my response. My wife and I are celebrating her 77th birthday. It's been a grand day.
Best Wishes.

Dear S. Disturber, (aka, @Old_Joe )
Could be either or both, depending upon how well the advisors surveyed actually performed for their customer base; as the Natixis whitepaper is apparently directed at a captive crowd of company connected advisors.
I did read that "alternative investments" seem to be on the "next or current" hot plate of places for money to travel; if the client is in the $1-4 million dollar portfolio arena.
If and when an investment advisor can provide a true document to me of how they performed for portfolio type "x", over the past 10, 5 and 1year time frames, that would have been or is suitable for me today, I'll listen.
The most simple baseline would be to compare against the inexpensive VWINX.
Below in bold, from the 2015 whitepaper linked prior:
Investment Pragmatist: More than three-quarters of advisors believe that a
traditional stock and bond portfolio is no longer enough to effectively manage
risk and pursue returns. Fortunately, continual innovation has provided access
to new asset classes, new pricing structure and new portfolio tools, allowing
advisors to make practical decisions about which tool will best fit client goals
and investment objectives.
I wish these folks (advisors and clients) well with the alternative path.
The below fund link at about 40/60, equity/bond over the long term. Pick your own equity/bond mix, a built your own, eh? My own caution note for such a mix is that some bond types may blow up at any time, and I would always advise to be observant. 'Course, folks here are always paying attention, yes? And don't forget that the death of the 30+ year bond market bull continues to be issued by someone, somewhere; one would suspect. I recall its imminent death announcement here several years ago (the thread exists somewhere, eh?), but I don't have time for search; although I recall Mr. Snowball was involved in the discussion).
VWINX performance
VWINX composition
Lastly, I have had several pre-Halloween treats today; in order to sample the quality of what we will distribute to the young ones. Hopefully, this has not affected, greatly, my ability to think or write. 'Course, in reading this before posting; I sound a bit arrogant, eh?
Well, I know I am as smart and do as well as some financial advisors on this planet.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Mr. Catch

@Old_Joe I'm glad to see Paul Katzoff of IBD join the ranks of many financial writers who over the years have monitored FundAlarm and now MFO.
Regards,
Ted

One of the links MJG provided (and on which Chuck Jaffe's article appears based) is to a Natixis publication clearly intended for financial advisors. It draws from findings included a survey of 2400 financial advisors worldwide. The survey was commissioned by Natixis and conducted during June and July 2015 by CoreData Research. Of the 2400 advisors queried, only 300 were from the U.S. Here's the link again: http://durableportfolios.com/docs/593/246/Global Financial Advisor Survey Whitepaper_2015 archived_final.pdf
Natixis did not conduct the underlying research, nor does the linked publication include the raw research findings. What you are seeing is a glitzy, possibly slanted, promotional piece designed to enhance Natixis's business and assist its network of commission-based advisors. It's therefore hard to evaluate, since it isn't directed at retail investors, but, rather, to the advisors who offer, promote or sell Natixis funds. https://ngam.natixis.com/us/by-price-and-performance
Jaffe appears to be in error in calling his source a "study" - as most would understand that term. Nor, I'll argue, should his source be termed a "survey", since Natixis did not conduct the survey. More appropriately, what one gets here is Natixis's interpretation of a survey conducted by someone else.
For purely illustrative purposes, here's some phrases contained in the the Natixis publication which do not comport with how a scientific study should/would have been written:
"... a perfect storm"
"... where the rubber meets the road"
"... plenty of fodder to fuel a heated debate"
I wouldn't drive across a bridge for which the engineering study of structural integrity contained such vernacular/vague terminology. :))
Natixis's "conclusions" are listed at the end of the publication. They might best be viewed as both guidance and suggested talking points for financial advisors.
--- Put risk first.
--- Maximize diversification.
--- Use alternatives.
--- Make smarter use of traditional investments.
--- Be consistent.
(I suspect MJG, and many others here, here would agree with some, but not all, of the above recommendations.)

Hi Davidrmoran,
Your post has more than a small touch of bitterness. It also has the feel of desperation; the feel of a violent Kamikaze attack. That's too bad since better investment outcomes are more likely if learning and decisions are made in an unemotional way.
Yes, indeed I did read the two references that I posted. You often challenge me in that dimension, which is yet another measure of your bitterness directed at me. I assure you I am not hostile to anyone on MFO. I mostly post for educational purposes.
It was for educational purposes that I posted the two Links that you criticize. I especially referenced the Natixis PDF because it was a nice review of their baseline survey methodology. It was not the survey paper that Jaffe referenced. I extracted the rough number of investors and financial advisors generally surveyed from that review document. One objective of the Natixis work is to help advisors provide more useful service to their customer base.
You certainly should express your opinion on any topic posted on MFO. Your standards are not the same as mine. I'm sure each MFOer has his own set of standards. Hooray for those differences and the freedom to express them, hopefully in a friendly and constructive manner.
Recall what Marcus Aurelius said: "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." That quote is particularly insightful when discussing investment matters.
Best Wishes.

Hi Old Joe,
We seem to be in complete agreement that both investors and their financial advisors are likely overly optimistic with respect to portfolio returns in the next decade. According to the surveys, financial advisors attempt to dampen the enthusiasm of their clients. That's probably a good policy. Realism is always superior to wishful optimism.
We part ways when assessing the worthiness of the Jaffe article that was referenced. It is not BS. To summarily discredit the article as BS does a disservice to Chuck Jaffe, to the company who conducted the surveys, and to the MFO membership.
Jaffe has been a respected and widely recognized financial writer for decades. He would never risk compromising his reputation by inventing statistics or referencing a faulty survey. He did not do so in the current article.
Jaffe relied on statistical data collected by an outfit (Natixis) that frequently does worldwide financial surveys. Typically their surveys question over 7000 individual investors and/or over 2000 financial advisors. These surveys are conducted in double digit countries.
You might not trust surveys. That is your choice. But the surveys seem to be very well designed and honestly conducted.. Before assigning the BS perjorative to Jaffe and the Natixis Global Asset Management firm, I suggest you visit the two Links that are now provided:
http://www.aaii.com/authors/chuck-jaffe
http://durableportfolios.com/docs/593/246/Global Financial Advisor Survey Whitepaper_2015 archived_final.pdf
Perhaps these documents might soften your strong opinion. I hope so. Neither Jaffe nor Natixis deserve your BS judgment. You may not believe the survey results, but they are the results.
Best Wishes.

Hi Guys,
Not only are investors far too optimistic of the level of near term return likelihoods, but their financial advisors are too optimistic also. It is not likely that the average portfolio will deliver the 5.9% returns over inflation that the professional advisors are currently projecting.
Given our low GDP growth rate of about 1%, the odds are against the good times that our advisor class is forecasting. The current GDP and irs coupled productivity growth rates are more than two times below our historical average. The other contributor to annual returns, the market's P/E ratio level, is far above its historical average, so the most probable direction for that contributor is downward, a regression-to-it's-mean movement which will subtract from returns.
Both these returns factors suggest muted near term equity returns, not necessarily negative, but perhaps a factor of two below the historical returns. This forecasting method, which has long been advocated by John Bogle, is not highly accurate for any given year, but it does a very respectable forecasting job over a timeframe like a decade.
According to that returns equation, expect muted equity returns, even below those endorsed by the reported financial advisor wizards. Retirement dates might need to be delayed for those assuming near historical equity market returns. That's not a high probability future. Sorry about that, but that's the way the cards are likely (never a guaranteed outcome) to play out in the next decade.
Best Wishes.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1376720/000139834416019748/fp0022085_497.htm
497 1 fp0022085_497.htm
STEWART CAPITAL MID CAP FUND
(a series of Stewart Capital Mutual Funds)
Supplement dated October 19, 2016 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2016
This Supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus and SAI. This Supplement supersedes any information to the contrary in the Prospectus, SAI, and the Supplement filed September 27, 2016.
The Board of Trustees of Stewart Capital Mutual Funds has concluded that it is in the best interests of Stewart Capital Mid Cap Fund (the “Fund”) and the Fund’s shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or before November 18, 2016 (the “Redemption Date”).
On September 27, 2016, the Fund stopped accepting new investments and stopped pursuing its stated investment objective. The Fund will liquidate its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and 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.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Fund 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 “Dividends, Distributions and Taxes” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THE REDEMPTION 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 Fund at (877) 420-4440.
This Supplement and the existing Prospectus dated May 1, 2016, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2016, have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by visiting www.stewartcap.com or calling the Fund at (877) 420-4440.

I am very grateful so many of you sent such thoughtful comments. I will continue to report on the DOL rule. If any of you are financial advisors who would be available for interviews, let me know plz: [email protected]
Thnx again!