FYI: Need ideas for the choppy waters ahead? Harold Evensky, chairman of wealth-management shop Evensky & Katz in Coral Gables, Fla., says the answer is minimizing fees and reducing costly taxes. Evensky manages $1.6 billion in assets, with the ­median client holding $2.5 million, and insists that even very wealthy clients should load up on cheap exchange-traded funds. “We would love to market-time, but we conclude nobody has done that well,” says the 30-year veteran of the financial planning business. “So we figured if we could save half a percentage point on taxes and expenses, we could improve performance, net of fees, taxes, and inflation, by maybe 15% to 20%” a year.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2015/05/22/9-top-investment-ideas-for-wealthy-investors/tab/print/

FYI: (Click On Article At Top Of Google Search)
When it comes to investing clients’ short-term cash, financial advisers now face an unusual quandary.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=short+term+investing+wsj

@Sven said Something is very fishy with Hanergy.
Hanergy not the only funny money valuation on the various Chinese Exchanges.
"Hanergy and Goldin Financial Hldgs both...surged more than sixfold in the past 12 months. Across the border in Shenzhen, there are 103 stocks that rallied that much in a year, compared with only four in the former British colony. Among the 1,721 stocks on the Shenzhen Composite Index,only four have declined this year.
“Hanergy and Goldin are a good reminder for investors in China,” Ronald Wan, chief executive at Partners Capital International Ltd. said in Hong Kong. “They have a close similarity with many stocks in Shenzhen which have rallied based on speculation rather than fundamentals.”
The 103 stocks in the Shenzhen 500 percent club trade at an average 375 times reported earnings, while their average market capitalization has risen to $3.5 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Many of them recently sold shares for the first time."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-22/hanergy-goldin-s-wild-rides-are-nothing-next-to-shenzhen-stocks

Something is very fishy with Hanergy.
Financial Time
ft.com/cms/s/2/cea87e76-fedb-11e4-94c8-00144feabdc0.html#slide0

@MJG: Of course a home-built spreadsheet is not going to be able to introduce the year-to-year possible variables of a sophisticated Monte Carlo platform, which obviously takes an entirely different approach, running thousands of possible scenarios and expressing the results as a measurement of probability. Either approach, however, suffers from the fact that the input variables are predicated upon past financial experiences, and neither can anticipate something new coming down the road.
The ss approach fundamentally evaluates a financial situation over a period of time anticipating that over a long period of time some sort of average will be produced. Yes, some years radically up, yes some years radically down. Can the ss identify those specific events in advance? Of course not. Over forty years, though, those ups and downs will be smoothed to some sort of a long-term performance.
By varying the values of the input variable manually, it's not all that hard to establish a performance range from pessimistic to unrealistic, and try to pick a course somewhere down the middle.
Construction of the various scenarios is up to the user of the spreadsheet. Those of us, including you and me, whose parents survived the "great depression", should have the sense to expect major financial fiascos, and condition our input parameters accordingly.
The ss also maintained a cash reserve, completely separate from the other assets, that was designed to compensate for zero income during a four year period. Now obviously, that is an improbable situation. However, over a forty year stretch, that anomaly was smoothed into the overall considerations. You evidently want me to justify my work on some sort of rigid engineering basis. It wasn't engineering at all- it was a very flexible tool that allowed me to see the results over time of a complex financial situation, by adjusting many input variables, with a reasonable chance that the results would give at least some insight to the future. It clearly suggested the spending limits that might be anticipated under a wide variety of circumstances, and for my purposes, succeeded very well. I'll leave the engineering to the designers of our new Bay Bridge section.
I sincerely hope that I have explained what I did to your satisfaction. If not, I give up.
Out.

@MJG: I have no idea what exactly you are asking for. The portion of the spreadsheet that dealt with the retirement projections drew data from the main part of the ss that I still use to keep track of financial and fund performance. It started with the amount then available in the cash/bond/equity baskets, and merely projected forward on a compounding basis, year by year, for forty years. It was also possible to change the cash/bond/equity ratios so as to observe how projected performance would vary. I no longer maintain that retirement section, as it required a lot of time and computing horsepower and is now unnecessary. Having survived 2008 in decent shape, I no longer worry about the big picture. As it turns out, my projections were so conservative that to this point income has exceeded spending, and we have yet to draw down anything from the investment pool.
One of the key variables was the amount of income desired annually, or every-other year on an alternating basis. That entry was also automatically increased going forward on a compounded basis, dependent upon the input inflation rate. The ss then calculated income from retirement and SS (reduced by income tax) going forward, and if the desired income exceeded the actual income projected, would then draw down cash, bond, and equity positions to supply the extra amount needed, and then ran the adjusted values forward. Of course, simply reducing the desired income level also had a major impact. By varying the inputs for the principal cash/bond/equity drawdown ratios, it was possible to see which combination gave the most satisfactory results.
The ss retirement section was a major ongoing investment in time, and underwent frequent revisions and modifications as new complexities presented themselves. Now, I've given you all the time on this that I intend to, and certainly more than you deserve given your many nasty comments over the years.
For those unable or unwilling to go to that much trouble, I'm sure that Monte Carlo exercises are much better than nothing.

"Generally, a bottoms up approach is better i.e. budget, net worth, pension, SS etc."
@Dex: You've done it now. I prescribed something similar many years ago, based upon my personal experience. Since it didn't involve elaborate financial engineering and theories, but rather common sense based upon life experience, our would-be master of the financial universe regarded that as inherently inferior to his vaunted Monte Carlo approach. He is under the misapprehension that I denigrate Monte Carlo, which is in fact inaccurate. Because he is evidently incapable of contemplating that anything he believes may not be factual, it has led to the present acrimonious exchange of opinion. You may be in danger of joining me in that category.
First, the planning and accumulation of data: I designed a worksheet which divided our expenses into various categories, including those which were optional and those which were absolutely required. I didn't buy into the "oh, once you're retired you're expenses will be lower" theme which was so popular at the time.
Once a month we tabulated all of our expenses, and filled out that worksheet. After three or four years we had a pretty good idea of our spending patterns. Assuming (yes, MJG, an assumption!, indicating of course a lesser intellect than you obviously possess) that that pattern was a reasonable model for the future, I then spent many, many hours designing a spreadsheet that could consider our net worth, lack of debt, anticipated incomes from pensions, investments and SS, ongoing expenses, and special expenses.
It allowed the entry and consideration of variables for inflation, investment income according to various asset allocation percentages (cash/bonds/equity), special expenses, and major financial disasters, a la 2008, which could be inserted at any desired year. It allowed for two expense modes: one allowed variable optional expenses each year (travel and so forth), and an alternative mode which held the expenses to the mandatory for one year, but allowed for additional optional expenses the second year, and so forth alternating every other year. Being a pessimist by nature, every facet of the calculations was designed to utilize the least favorable case. For instance, it assumed that cash would generate less interest than actual inflation, that bond income would merely break even, and that equity income would be in a variable input range from 3 to 5% above inflation.
For income source and expenses it generated a series of compounding tables which ran out for forty years, starting at age 60, which would have taken us to 100 years of age. From all of the subsidiary tables (each of which, using compounding calculations, took about one page of the spreadsheet) it generated a master table showing the remaining investment assets year-by-year.
It was prescient, in that 2008 struck at the least favorable possible time in our case: a few years after we retired. Because of the deliberate pessimistic bias of the calculations, we've weathered that disaster, and are still in excellent financial condition.
If you want a solid substantial approach based upon known variables, rather than Monte Carlo assumptions, I can recommend the spreadsheet approach, based upon personal experience.
Regards- OJ

The big unanswerable Q for middle class prospective retirement is: will you or your spouse require LTC -- particularly "Memory Care" -- current name for dementia care. If so, it can be devastating to finances, and will become more so if current trends continue. In the past 7-8 years I have seen this situation play out for 3 family members, all different situations in terms of savings ("wealth"), pensions, and family support. I just recently spent the better part of a year accompanying a relative through an endless succession of visits to living facilities with provisions for "memory care", as well as conferences with a nationally known eldercare lawyer. I learned a great deal about costs, about how facilities determine charges and whether the applicant has "ability to pay", about LTC insurance policies and rates (which BTW will certainly go up substantially in the very near future -- plus a substantial differential for females -ahem). We also observed the interesting fact that deluxe retirement facilities are not only being bought up by corporate entities, but many new ones are under construction by these corporations everywhere as well. Since the supply of those with unlimited resources is finite and the for-profits don't take Medicaid when you run out, I assume that the intended clientile is uppermiddle-to-lower-upper, and if and when you are picked clean, you end up moving to wherever they take Medicaid.
This is an extremely complicated subject, and I am no professional observer, merely one who has been a bystander to the struggles of others, and I can only point out here one of the issues which sooner or later many of us will have to face. None of us knows the future, but this possibility is not one that many of us think about when we plan, and the possibilities for financial catastrophy, particularly for a surviving spouse, do exist.
In summary, my point is that there are possibilities that may arise in our retirement that we do not wish to contemplate; that we should consider, and that
we simply cannot guarantee, but should be aware of.
To those who pursue this post to the closing paragraph -- I wish you well, hope that you do not ever have to contemplate such an issue in your own lives, but that you maintain awareness, not only for yourselves, but for others (aka, our society as a whole), and wish you well....

Hi Dex,
You ask a very open-ended question that is poorly timed if it specifically applies to your situation. From your earlier postings, I recall that you jumped into the retirement stream a few years ago. If so, you are probably an unhappy camper these days that prompted the question. Fortunately, reassessments, recoveries, and reversals are often possible.
A million dollars is a nice nest-egg. But, like in most instances, it depends. It depends very much on the particulars of the situation such as age, wealth, health, partner relationships, preferences, location, and a host of other tangibles and intangibles.
A single answer isn’t appropriate in this forum even for a specific person since the relevant circumstances are dynamic and in constant flux. It is especially not appropriate from the MFO membership given our incomplete and imperfect understanding of your circumstances.
But we can offer generic guidelines and some useful references that will permit candidate retirees to make more informed decisions.
A limitless array of planning tools and aids are easily accessible for anyone willing to do the work. I retired over two decades ago, and even in those prehistoric days, the literature was overwhelming. I selectively used it. Today, given the Internet capabilities, it is a still easier task, but requires some careful screening. All advice is not equal.
I purchased a retirement planning tool generated by an outfit called Educational Technologies, Inc. It included tapes and written documentation. Major sections in it incorporated psychological adjustment, financial planning, investment, heath issues, estate planning, and financial benefit units. I supplemented the financial planning section with independent Monte Carlo simulations.
The retirement decision is multi-dimensional. It is complex with many interacting, dynamic parts. Given that complexity, I doubt that well-meaning MFOers can provide definitive answers beyond some incomplete hints and references. As Reagan said: “Trust, but verify”.
A million dollars might service you very comfortably, but might be totally inadequate for me. In the end, it depends. In the end, the candidate retiree must do the heavy lifting himself. Do the necessary homework. There are no magic wands to simplify the task that MFOers can honestly offer.
I remain consistent in my response to similar questions that you asked on earlier submittals. Explore the usefulness of Monte Carlo simulations. Ignore uniformed judgments by individuals who never used the tool, or even read the literature on the subject.
Experience is a great teacher, but is a time consuming and costly educator. Monte Carlo simulators provide a shortcut learning tool that permits its users to examine a plethora of what-if scenarios tailored to your specific situation. I’ve identified many Internet accessible Monte Carlo codes on earlier interchanges. You can only fully trust your own work.
Good luck on your reassessment project.
Best Wishes.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580215000027/financialinvestorstrustvulca.htm
497 1 financialinvestorstrustvulca.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Vulcan Value Partners Fund (the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 18, 2015 TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED AUGUST 31, 2014
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for the Fund dated August 31, 2014. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.vulcanvaluepartners.com or calling us at 1.877.421.5078.
Effective as of the close of business on June 1, 2015, the Fund will close to new investors, except as described below. This change will affect new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund either directly or through third party intermediaries. Existing shareholders of the Fund may continue to purchase additional shares of the Fund.
*A financial advisor whose clients have established accounts in the Fund as of June 1, 2015, may continue to open new accounts in the Fund for any of its existing or new clients.
*Existing or new participants in a qualified retirement plan, such as a 401(k) plan, profit sharing plan, 403(b) plan or 457 plan, which has an existing position in the Fund as of June 1, 2015, may continue to open new accounts in the Fund. In addition, if such qualified retirement plans have a related retirement plan formed in the future, this plan may also open new accounts in the Fund.
The Fund retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

"“the odds that merely having more money will make you happier are pretty close to zero”."
Can I have his, then?
Over the past few years, I've increasingly focused on having a long-term view and preparing for that and being satisfied with that and then going with the flow to some degree. I just find it ultimately healthy. Hobbies, learning, reading. Ultimately, I've found that I've learned a great degree via investing because it has lead me in unexpected directions as I try to research companies, countries, industries, etc. I'd always found healthcare to be something that I "didn't understand, so let a fund manager do it." One day, I went, why couldn't I try to understand a lot of these concepts? It's ultimately been rewarding on a number of levels.
That said, in terms of people going, "Money doesn't make you happier" often leads me to saying some variation on what I do above.
As for occasional humor, I just find it better than being so serious about certain subjects I ultimately don't think I will change nor will I change someone's opinion on. Perhaps a little humor will lead someone to maybe be a little more open than arguing with them would or maybe have a second thought about something they'd stood firm on. Maybe not.
Perhaps there's a part of me that feels monetary policy has been distorted over the last several years to the point where perhaps it is a little ridiculous the kind of "Twilight Zone" we find ourselves in, where the focus is not really on anything but what Yellen might say (this Friday btw) and good news is regarded as bad because the market is so addicted to easy money.
As for the graph in the original post, perhaps it really does show that those who are doing well are doing well and much of the rest of the economy is not, or muddling along. Perhaps it further illustrates the lack of financial education (was told by a relative the other day when mentioning financial education that their 25-year-old had no idea how to write a check.) We are all on an investing board. What % of the population hasn't been taught or taught themselves basic investing concepts? I'd be willing to guess a larger % than most would think and that's unfortunate.
Additionally, in terms of wealth distribution I'd be curious to know what the population of the "1%" looks like over the years and whether or not that uppermost level of wealth is held by more or fewer hands.

"Jeez, nothing like sarcastic preemption to cloud the facts. "
How about the religious zealot-level of devotion to theory, to the point where anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulted and given a reading list so you can make sure they are properly indoctrinated? I would be fascinated the response on this board if Krugman came out tomorrow and said he was becoming a Republican. It would be like telling kids there is no Santa.
And at least perhaps my light post gave a couple of people a chuckle. Ultimately, the decision that I have made is to do the only thing I can do: figure where I believe things are going and invest in a manner that expresses those beliefs. I will be light, I will occasionally be sarcastic, because honestly, we can sit here and argue about economic theory, but ultimately I don't believe that I have one iota of say (or do the people on this board, unless one of you is an FOMC member that the rest of us are unaware of) as to the ultimate direction this economy is being taken in. Beyond that, we live in an economy where there have been more than a few examples of "if the numbers don't confirm the narrative, change the numbers." We don't like GDP? Lets change how it's calculated. Ah, all better. Or, the goalposts are endlessly moved.
Given my lack of control, all I can do is attempt to try and think ahead and play futurist and invest accordingly. That's all I can do and coming to terms with that fact is ultimately freeing from the standpoint of, I don't care what one FOMC member does today and that another will ultimately probably contradict them a day or two later. I may not agree with monetary policy, but you know what, I really just don't care as much. I know that this period will end badly -and I say that with the utmost certainty - but I've invested in the manner that I think is appropriate. And that's all I can do. Maybe I'll crack jokes on here on occasion, I just think it's a better use of time than becoming stressed when someone says something I don't agree with.
All of this arguing on the internet does nothing, it fixes nothing and it's ultimately a waste of time. I love productive conversation - any sort of discussion of monetary policy or politics is ultimately futile because people have grown so deeply fixated on their beliefs that anyone else is often largely either shouted down or ignored. So, why do it? Or why not crack a few jokes. If I get someone to smile when I post a joke post with a "The More You Know" PSA at the end, that's worthwhile to me. I'm happy to talk about investments for hours on end, but the divisiveness of people in regards to certain topics does often lead to a joke because ultimately, I'd rather laugh than be upset over the internet about views of someone else's that I know with great certainty they have no interest whatsoever in changing. When I do crack a joke or make light, it's the almost religious devotion to political parties that shows itself. As I've said before on this board, it's the internet, don't get stressed by someone who doesn't agree with you - you'll never get everyone to agree with you. If you can have a constructive conversation on the internet - an increasing rarity - be happy.
As for Krugman, I find Krugman's delight over destruction (to the point where he went on cable news and suggested that creating a real life sequel to "Independence Day" would be a great idea) as "GDP positive!" to be disturbing, among other issues. This is not exactly something that one has to search for examples of, either - there are more than a few, to the point where Krugman has been parodied for this on multiple occasions.
His wild-eyed rant on CNN about how a "fake alien invasion would help GDP" - where to begin, aside from the fact that the man looked out of his mind. As far as I'm concerned, if someone can look at this video (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/15/krugman-you-know-what-this-economy-needs-a-space-alien-invasion/) and say, "Gee, he sounds like someone who I want to follow", then please, go right ahead.
"No one says enormous sustained financed spending (on anything, not just infrastructure, it could be on unneeded weapons) at multiples larger than productive economic activity is a good idea. Meaning sure, heedless debt can pose a threat to financial stability. But it's not like that now"
Well, I'm very glad that you are trusting of this government to spend money so wisely and regulate spending so well. The complete faith in the system and the small group tasked with regulating it is really quite remarkable.
"It's not like that now." Nor will it ever get out of hand, right? Nor have there ever been any examples in history, right? But we're different, right?
It's the attitude that the increasingly complex and interconnected global economy can be dialed up and down like an air conditioner that irks me. "It's fine now, right?" "Want it a little warmer, a little cooler? Easy peasy."
How much confidence do you have that you can control this? "100%?" I'm sure Bernanke wouldn't have said "Ehhhh, 50/50", but can you really have 100% confidence in controlling a system that has grown increasingly complex, even since 2008? In a system that is interconnected and relies heavily upon confidence - something that's difficult to control, especially once it is lost? Where are we, several years of ZIRP and multiple QE's later? The world isn't ending, but the ROI for what has been the easiest monetary policy in history seems rather lackluster and now we're here with weak GDP growth and little in the way to stop the Winter that we've been trying to put off and buy our way out of for so long.
I have a significant fascination with how things work. However, I tend to focus it on learning more about science, industry, other cultures and other such things. I can have my views on economic theory and monetary policy, but as I get a little older I suppose I want to devote time to topics that are ultimately more enjoyable and perhaps a tad more positive.
People lack respect for the potential volatility, complexity and fragility of the global economy - 2008 was a delightful example, but it's clear that we haven't learned anything.
Ultimately, going back to the topic at hand, as I noted above, there have been enough studies that I don't doubt that the graphs are likely "in the general vicinity" of being correct.

Jeez, nothing like sarcastic preemption to cloud the facts.
No one says enormous sustained financed spending (on anything, not just infrastructure, it could be on unneeded weapons) at multiples larger than productive economic activity is a good idea. Meaning sure, heedless debt can pose a threat to financial stability. But it's not like that now, and was not back then, and it is in all cases money we owe ourselves --- an asset. Throwing out phrases like ponzi, stealing from our kids, printing money, all that, shows only profound false misunderstanding. Damaging, too. Even Merkel does not get it. Pointing out how it really goes does enrage some.
If you cannot bear to have the name Krugman pass your eyes (his analyses are clearest and easier to understand for a layperson, imo --- 'Globally, and for the most part even within countries, a rise in debt isn’t an indication that we’re living beyond our means'), then go read Yellen, Fatas, and a host of thoughtful others.
http://fatasmihov.blogspot.com/2015/02/those-mountains-of-debt-and-assets.html
Check out the graph of 325y of UK debt:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/debt-is-money-we-owe-to-ourselves/
'Britain did not emerge impoverished from the Napoleonic Wars; the government ended up with a lot of debt, but the counterpart of this debt was that the British propertied classes owned a lot of consols.'

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1516523/000119312515189005/d925959d497.htm
JOHCM EMERGING MARKETS OPPORTUNITIES FUND
JOHCM GLOBAL EQUITY FUND
JOHCM INTERNATIONAL SELECT FUND
JOHCM INTERNATIONAL SMALL CAP EQUITY FUND
JOHCM ASIA EX-JAPAN EQUITY FUND
JOHCM EMERGING MARKETS SMALL MID CAP EQUITY FUND
JOHCM US SMALL MID CAP EQUITY FUND
Each a series of Advisers Investment Trust
Supplement dated May 15, 2015
to the Prospectus dated January 28, 2015
Effective as of the close of business on July 15, 2015 (the “Closing Date”), the JOHCM International Select Fund (the “Fund”) will be publicly offered on a limited basis only. After the Closing Date, investors will not be eligible to purchase shares of the Fund, except as described below.
The following groups will be permitted to continue to purchase Fund shares:
1. Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date are able to continue to purchase additional shares in their existing Fund accounts either directly through the Fund or through a financial intermediary and may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions from shares owned in the Fund;
2. Group employer benefit plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457 plans, and health savings account programs (and their successor, related and affiliated plans), which have the Fund available to participants on or before the Closing Date, may continue to open accounts for new participants in the Fund and purchase additional shares in existing participant accounts. New group employer benefit plans, including 401(k), 403(b) and 457 plans, and health savings account programs (and their successor, related and affiliated plans), may also establish new accounts with the Fund, provided the new plans have approved and selected the Fund as an investment option by the Closing Date and the plan has also been accepted for investment by the Fund by the Closing Date.
3. Approved fee-based advisory programs may continue to utilize the Fund for new and existing program accounts. The program sponsors must be accepted for investment by the Fund by the Closing Date.
4. Approved brokerage platforms where a Fund is currently included on the sponsor platform may continue to utilize the Fund for new and existing program accounts. The brokerage platforms must be accepted for continued investment by the Fund by the Closing Date.
5. Existing independent wealth management (IWM) firms and bank trust companies that have a client investment in the Fund at the time of the Closing Date can continue to add new clients, purchase shares, and exchange into the Fund. The Fund will not be available to new IWM and bank trust companies that do not have a position in the Fund at the time of the Closing Date.
6. Fund of mutual fund sponsors that have an investment in the Fund as of the Closing Date can continue to purchase shares of the Fund.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Certain financial intermediaries with whom the Adviser has a relationship, provided that, in the judgment of JOHCM Funds, the proposed investment in the Fund would not adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund effectively.
8. An institutional consulting firm that has previously directed client assets into the Fund may be allowed to recommend the Fund to its new and existing clients who may in turn purchase shares of the Fund, provided that, in the judgment of JOHCM Funds, the proposed investment in the Fund would not adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund effectively.
9. Board of Trustees and persons affiliated with the Fund’s investment adviser and their immediate families would be able to purchase shares of the Fund and establish new positions.
In general, the Fund will rely on a financial intermediary to prevent a new account from being opened within an omnibus account established at that financial intermediary if the account would not otherwise satisfy the conditions outlined above. The Fund’s ability to monitor new accounts that are opened through omnibus accounts or other nominee accounts is limited and the ability to limit a new account to those that meet the above criteria with respect to financial intermediaries may vary depending upon the capabilities of those financial intermediaries.
Investors may be asked to verify that they meet one of the exceptions above prior to opening a new account in the Fund. The Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. If a shareholder opens a new account in the Fund and is later determined to be ineligible for investment, the Fund reserves the right to redeem the shares at their original NAV. The Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these exceptions.
If all shares of the Fund in an existing account are redeemed, the shareholder’s account will be closed. Such former shareholders will not be able to buy additional shares of the Fund or reopen their account.
The Fund reserves the right to make additional exceptions or otherwise modify the foregoing closure policy at any time.
This Supplement and the Statutory Prospectus dated January 28, 2015 provide the information
a prospective investor ought to know before investing and should be retained for future reference

"It’s interesting that Scott referenced some recent Rothschild happenings. "
RIT Capital Partners was originally part of the Rothschild dynasty as the Rothschild Investment Trust. It then was split off and went public as RIT Capital Partners. See: http://www.ritcap.com/our-heritage
RIT bought a stake in the Rockefeller dynasty in 2012 (http://www.ritcap.com/news-item&item=1024407682201991) and entered into a partnership with Edmond de Rothschild in the same year (http://www.edmond-de-rothschild.com/news/financial/news/strategic-partnership-between-rit-capital-partners-and-edmond-de-120316.aspx.)
RIT's key issue is sort of Buffett-esque in that you have a Chairman who is now almost 80. While the company is largely run by a number of managers, the question becomes does another family member fill in the spot as Chairman to continue RIT as part of the Rothschild dynasty?
A much deeper discussion here:
http://www.campdenfb.com/article/banking-family-ties

"I do think it is sort of a marketing agency for stocks in a way"
Exactly why I never even look at that sort of financial pimping. Just watching and reading here at MFO acts as a great filter for that BS, as you folks have a great ability to take that crap apart, shake it well, and see if anything worth keeping falls out.
And you, Scott, are one of the best, along with folks like msf, Charles, Ted, Hank, Catch 22, and another dozen or so who make this site what it is. I'll even include some contributions from MJG.
Regards- OJ

Scott, your own research and DD is good from what I've seen. Ignore the media, it's a time waster.

Thanks. It's not that the media usually bothers me and it's not that there aren't biotech companies that aren't overvalued based on the hopes of potential pipeline product. It's just that it's a little irritating that companies trying to solve considerable health issues are repeatedly lumped together as a bubble whereas all manner of ridiculous tech/social media nonsense is fawned over and no one questions that it could be a bubble until all of the sudden the major names (Twitter, Yelp, Linkedin) are down 30% all of the sudden and then they go, "Gee, was that a bubble?".
I do think that there is an aspect of financial media that does "sell" companies that are easily grasped by even the most uneducated retail investor. Jim Rogers called CNBC a "PR firm for stocks" - I do think it is sort of a marketing agency for stocks in a way and it becomes what's the easiest and most marketable sector that they think is "sexy" and will get retail interested. This often leads to eventual bagholders, as rather than getting people into quality companies with consistent performance, it's hyping whatever name or names have momentum. Financial media does little in the way of financial education, it's - and I think it's gotten worse in recent years in terms of hype over substance. Perhaps if CNBC went further in creating longer-term investors, its ratings would be better.
Yeah, there's some focus at times on the dull and boring, but the majority of time is spent fawning over the Ubers of the world, at least until reality sets in.

K1s are USUALLY fine and usually no problem with turbotax. There are, however, instances where they are not. See the KMP buyout situation which created a lot of frustration.
I'll also give you another delightful example: Energy Transfer Equity (ETE), which has stakes in a number of different partnerships. So you have to do a K-1 for each of the underlying holdings. That's a fun one (not.) ETE has done really well (on Goldman conviction buy list, $86 tgt), I like management a great deal. If it hadn't been doing as well as it has, I'd consider giving it the boot because that K-1 situation is just nuts.
Other than that, K-1s are never fun to deal with but they're okay. Personally, I own a number of partnerships but I recommend keeping to what you believe are absolute "must haves" - that's going to vary from person-to-person, but my view is really just only focus on your very best ideas in terms of PTP (publicly traded partnerships.) Don't speculate/trade MLPs because you'll end up with a K1 even if you hold it for less than a day.
Ultimately, I've looked for some alternatives instead of going any further into oil partnerships. Inter-Pipeline (IPPLF), which used to be a Canadian partnership, is one example. That's a very interesting company with some overseas exposure and a monthly dividend. Enbridge Income Fund (EBGUF.PK) is not something I own, but that's another example.
Also, in a related note: apparently Blackstone (BX)'s spin-off later this year will not be a partnership.
I also have a LOT in health care and while I've considered a few possible additions, I'm probably done with adding to that.
The other things that I have a lot of are the commodities exchanges and credit card co/financial technology.

If anyone is interesting in a Webinair (May 20th @ 2pm) on the topic of "A New Look at Social Security: Coordination with the Retirement Portfolio" register here,
A New Look at Social Security: Coordination with the Retirement Portfolio

FYI: Ultra-high-net-worth investors rank smart investing just below hard work and education as the key factors that are responsible for their financial success
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/051215/look-how-ultrawealthy-invest.asp?partner=YahooSA