(1) Halting Redemptions: Here's an article which quotes existing SEC language giving fund directors permission to halt temporarily redemptions from money market funds in times of crisis. It was supposed to take effect a year ago:http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/02/warning-sec-has-given-money-market.html On broader scale, ... Never put all your eggs in one basket. Folks here are creative enough to figure out how best to preserve some degree of liquidity in event of a financial crisis. Umm ... Using different cash-equivalency funds, different banks, perhaps some govt. bonds, different lines of credit, a store of food or cash, perhaps a pocket full of gold or silver coins.
-
(2) Floating NAV: John's original article addresses the floating NAV soon to take effect (although fudiciaries can get around the requirement by designating a fund "retail" only). I view the change as equivalent of cod-liver oil. Won't taste very good - but healthier long run. Money market funds were not designed to insure the same level of safety or stability as banks or government bonds. The floating NAV brings investor expectations more in to line with reality. Consternation surrounding the floating NAV appears largely "Much Ado About Nothing". We have operated our family budget out of both good quality ultra-shorts and money market funds for decades. Fluctuations in value on the ultra-shorts are normally slight and not enough to upset anyone's budget. We've owned Price's TRBUX since inception. It aims for $5.00 NAV and typically remains at that value. On rare occasions has it fallen to $4.99 or risen to $5.01, hardly enough to be noticed. A conservative house, Price has probably done a better job running this type of fund than some others will. And, I'd expect greater fluctuations during a severe crisis. (Under such circumstances you'll probably have more to worry about than whether the cable bill gets paid on time.)
-
(3) Re Ol' Skeeter's Related Question http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/19156/money-market-reforms-force-advisers-to-rethink-risk#latest
Can't remember the last time I looked to my cash portion for income. The small amount of cash we hold is for immediate liquidity and to allow us to take advantage of opportunities that arise. Since most houses exempt money market funds and ultra-shorts from frequent trading restrictions, we're willing to sacrifice yield in return for that increased liquidity. We also keep balances in no-fee checking accounts at local banks and credit unions. While the income earned is negligible, we receive many services from these institutions. Things like being able to transfer funds in and out of our mutual funds, automatic bill paying, gift-cards during the Holidays, checking (even a supply of checks), all without fees.

BARRINGTON FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC.
a Registered Investment Advisor
(Celebrating 42 years of Professional Service)
MARKET COMMENTARY
FEBRUARY 2015
King Dollar is a two-edged sword. The very strong dollar has helped to cause the dramatic fall in oil prices. Like oil, all commodities are priced in dollars, so copper, iron ore, coal, grains, etc., are all lower in price, which has given the U.S. a very low inflation rate as well as adding after-tax dollars to the consumers’ pocketbook. Engineers know for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This does not always occur in financial markets but it has this time. Our strong currency is slowing our exports since other countries need to spend more of their currency to purchase our exports. This causes inflation in other countries, which is slowing their growth and lowering their consumption. Also, the fall in oil prices is causing domestic companies to dramatically lower capital spending this year resulting in announced lay offs in drilling and oil field service companies. This is problematic because the hydrocarbon industry has been the largest provider of high paying jobs over the last five years.
What was initially announced as a 2.6% GDP increase in the fourth quarter, will probably be reduced as more data on our export activity is more available. However, going forward, there are several factors which point to a continued increase in U.S. growth. Back on February 6th the U.S. Labor Department announced a stronger-than-expected increase of 257,000 jobs for January. They also increased the new hires number for December and November by 147,000 jobs. This is the largest labor increase in a three-month period since 1997. The Labor Department also stated wage gains were beginning to see higher growth. Outside of the energy business, labor hires are increasing. Retail, construction, manufacturing, and healthcare all showed an increase in hirings. The lower gasoline prices has allowed consumers to be able to increase their savings without crushing spending. They are also buying larger vehicles again. Truck and SUV sales have increased over the same periods a year ago. These vehicles are more profitable to the automobile manufacturer, which allows them to increase their profit as well as increase hiring.
As we mentioned earlier the strong dollar has contributed to the dramatic fall in the price of oil. However, slower demand from a slowing world economy along with increased production in Canada and the U.S. quickened the fall in price as surpluses rose. We believe there are several factors, which will cause prices to stabilize and start to rise sooner than many analysts are predicting. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) last week announced that gasoline consumption in January showed a dramatic increase over a year ago. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is predicting world-wide consumption to increase to around 94 mm barrels/day by the end of the year, an increase of about 1.5 mm barrels. In addition, political problems around the world are beginning to slow production. Libya has slowed exports by about 500,000 barrels/day over the last two months and the EIA announced domestic production decreased by 33,000 barrels/day last month. For these reasons we believe the price of oil has currently stabilized around the $50 per barrel price and has started to rise back up toward the $70 to $80 per barrel that we think it will reach by year end. This price increase will be aided by a somewhat weaker dollar between now and year end.
The oil price collapse has caused some investors to throw out the baby with the bath water. As a patient investor, there are bargains available in the market. As oil prices have fallen, so have Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs). Ethane had fallen to about $0.40/gallon, down from over $1.50/gallon last year. This gives the U.S. chemical industry a distinct advantage over other areas of the world that use Naphtha to derive Ethylene. One sector of the economy that benefits from lower prices is the chemical industry. Westlake Chemicals (WLK) and LyondellBasell (LYB) are still our favorites in this sector. Their plant expansions are coming on line now thru mid-2017. This added capacity will lower their cost even more and enable them to take better advantage of the abundance of domestic NGL production. We feel both of these companies are still oversold. We do not feel that the price of oil is going to remain low enough for long enough to have any sort of negative impact on their earnings so we will be adding to these positions as cash becomes available.
The mid-stream sector was hard hit as well. These companies derive most of their income from fee-based revenue through their pipelines and NGL processing. They are largely shielded from the price of the hydrocarbon. Several mid-stream companies we follow are building capacity to take advantage of the domestic expansion in production and demand in the NGL space. Our two favorite names in this space are Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) and Kinder Morgan (KMI).
With the large drop in oil prices, almost all of the E&P companies have slashed their capital expansion spending for the coming year by at least 25% to over 50%. They will not ramp back up until oil prices rise and stabilize. As the price of oil gains ground back to the mid-$60s, several producers that have very good leases will again be very profitable. We are now slowly increasing our positions in several players in this area. Names we recommend are Concho Resources Inc. (CXO), EOG Resources (EOG), and Linn Energy (LINE). For an investment in the Marcellus shale, Gastar Exploration (GST) and Range Resources (RRC) are where we are currently adding money.
We are emphasizing investments in companies with good cash flow, good cash distributions and companies that operate in areas where they have a competitive advantage due to much lower energy costs and raw material input costs. We prefer companies with price earnings ratios that are at levels that are attractive compared to the low interest rates on investment grade bonds. BSG&L and BFA are long-term investors and we believe that if you are patient, build cash and buy good companies on pull backs, your portfolio will have good growth over the long term. Author: Ben Dickey, CFP/MBA/CHFC, Chairman of the Investment Committee, BSG&L Financial Services LLC.
We welcome any concerns, or comments you may have. Please feel free to call (713) 785-7100 or email us at any time.
Have a Blessed Day,
William C. Heath, CFP®
Chairman & CEO

FYI: American Century has been fairly quiet on the liquid alternatives front as the product category has experienced a boom since the 2008 financial crisis. In 2011, the firm launched two “130/30” funds and a market-neutral fund, and it has been operating another equity market-neutral fund since 2005, but American Century has largely been on the sideline of the liquid alts movement.
Regards,
Ted
http://dailyalts.com/american-century-makes-liquid-alts-move/

For investors who desire a moderate allocation portfolio who do not desire to put in the effort to identify funds that have a history of doing better.......

Does investing in funds that have a history of doing better result in a portfolio that performs better in the future?
John Bogle is fond of saying that "past is not prologue"
And MJG has frequently posted about the lack of persistence in mutual fund performance, in other words, invest in a list of the best performers over the past 10 years, and it is not likely they will be in the list of best performers for the coming 10 years.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?uid=50214&f=10&t=156573&start=0
What Experts Say About "Past Performance"
Frank Armstrong, financial author: "Rating services such as Morningstar's 'Star Awards' or the 'Forbes Honor Roll' attest to the futility of applying past performance to tomorrow."
Barra Research: "There is no persistence of equity fund performance."
Jack Bogle: "The biggest mistake investors make is looking backward at performance and thinking it’ll recur in the future."
Burns Advisory tracked the performance of Morningstar's five-star rated stock funds beginning January 1, 1999. Of the 248 stock funds, just four still kept that rank after ten years.
Wm. Bernstein, author of The Four Pillars of Investing: "For the 20 years from 1970 to 1989, the best performing stock assets were Japanese stocks, U.S. small stocks, and gold stocks. These turned out to be the worst performing assets over the next decade."
Jack Brennan, former Vanguard CEO: "Fund ranking is meaningless when based primarily on past performance, as most are."
Andrew Clarke, author: "By the time an investment reaches the top of the performance tables, there's a good chance that its run is over. The past is not prologue."
Prof. John Cochrane, author: "Past performance has almost no information about future performance."
S.T.Coleridge: "History is a lantern over the stern. It shows where you've been but not where you're going"
Jonathan Clements, author & Wall Street Journal columnist: "Trying to pick market-beating investments is a loser's game."
Eugene Fama, Nobel Laureate: "Our research on individual mutual funds says that it's impossible to identify true winners on a reliable basis, even if one ignores the costs that active funds impose on investors."
Gensler & Bear, co-authors of The Great Mutual Fund Trap: "Of the fifty top-performing funds in 2000, not a single one appeared on the list in either 1999 or 1998."
Ken Heebner's CGM Focus Fund was the top U.S. equity fund in 2007. In November 2009, it ranked in the bottom 1% of its category.
Arthur Levitt, SEC Commissioner: "A mutual fund's past performance, which is the first feature that investors consider when choosing a fund, doesn't predict future performance."
Burton Malkiel, author of the classic Random Walk Down Wall Street: "I have examined the lack of persistency in fund returns over periods from the 1960s through the early 2000s.--There is no persistency to good performance. It is as random as the market."
Mercer Investment Consulting from a study of over 12,000 institutional managers: "Excellent recent performance not only doesn't guarantee future results but generally leads to under-performance in the subsequent period."
After fifteen straight years beating the S&P 500 Index, Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust (LMNVX) is now (1/25/2015) in the bottom 1% of its category for 10-year returns .
Ron Ross, author of The Unbeatable Market: "Extensive studies by Davis, Brown & Groetzman, Ibbotson, Elton et al, all confirmed there is no significant persistance in mutual fund performance."
Bill Schultheis, adviser and author of The Coffeehouse Investor: "Using past performance numbers as a method for choosing mutual funds is such a lousy idea that mutual fund companies are required by law to tell you it is a lousy idea."
Standard & Poor's: "Over the 5 years ending September 2009, only 4.27% large-cap funds, 3.98% mid-cap funds, and 9.13% small-cap funds maintained a top-half ranking over the five consecutive 12-month periods."
Larry Swedroe, author of many finance books: "The 44 Wall Street Fund was the top performing fund over the decade of the 1970s. It ranked as the single worst performing fund of the 1980's losing 73%. -- If you are going to use past performance to predict the future winners, the evidence is strong that your approach is highly likely to fail."
David Swensen, Yale's Chief Investment Officer: "Chasing performance is the biggest mistake investors make. If anything, it is a perverse indicator."
Tweddell & Pierce, co-authors of Winning With Mutual Funds: "Numerous studies have shown that using superior past performance is no better than random selection."
Eric Tyson, author of Mutual Funds for Dummies (2010 edition): "Of the number one top-performing stock and bond funds in each of the last 20 years, a whopping 80% of them subsequently performed worse than the average fund in their peer group over the next 5 to 10 years! Some of these former #1 funds actually went on to become the worst-performing funds in their particular category."
Value Line selected Garret Van Wagoner "Mutual fund Manager of the Year" in 1999. In August 2009, Van Wagoner's Emerging Growth Fund was the worst performing U.S. stock fund over the past 10 years.
+++++++++++
along with MJG, I also hold actively managed funds. But I think one thing that needs to be talked about much more is the tax implications (the drop in performance) of all the taxable distributions that actively managed funds tend to make.
The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index fund and the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund have not had a single capital gains distribution in more than 10 years. The only taxes you pay are on qualified dividends. This is a HUGE issue.
In the typical performance figures we see before tax returns. Would be interesting to see after tax returns, given a specified tax bracket. As we all know, you only keep the after tax returns.

Hi Roy,
Thanks for your brief list of current superior Balanced mutual funds. Fortunately, I have owned two of them for over two decades. Given my meager financial knowledge at my entry date, I was more lucky and less skilled when making those decisions.
Your survey demonstrates that superior (defined as generating positive excess returns) active fund managers exist, although numerous global studies such as the semi-annual S&P Persistence Scorecards strongly conclude that the persistency numbers are fewer than would be statistically expected. There are exceptions for a subset of investment categories.
Three issues came to mind while reviewing your list: (1) hindsight bias, (2) benchmark selection, and (3) data clutter. Allow me to expand on these elements sequentially.
I’m sure the list you posted was not assembled randomly; it was generated with returns as the primary sorting mechanism. Investors typically use past returns as their number one ordering criterion. But that’s based solely on ephemeral past performance. It is an excellent candidate for a creeping Hindsight bias. The real test is how well this list performs over the next extended timeframe. Studies of this issue paint a dark picture.
Many studies conclude that a returns approach is just too simple; Alpha (excess returns) persistence is an unreliable fund trait. Additional fund attributes such as low holdings turnover rate, low fee structure, long-term manager tenure, policy stability, and low Price/Earning ratio positions are likely to enhance the odds of positive Alpha retention.
Your selected 50/50 mixed benchmark is reasonable, but not quite correct for the funds listed. The basic policy for my two funds in that list do not practice a 50/50 asset allocation; both those funds deploy a nominal 60/40 mix standard philosophy. Any meaningful comparison with an Index benchmark should properly reflect a precise asset allocation distribution.
Finally, given that short-term outcomes are mostly noise that should be minimally weighted, comparisons of YTD, 1 year, and 3 year results are not as definitive as results recorded over the longer timeframes. The more recent data is clutter. I actually prefer 10 year and longer performance data since these are more likely to capture full cycle performance, both good years and bad years.
Active fund managers are hardly ever made to pay for their investment engineering missteps. That’s too bad since that failure to account for mistakes goes against ancient traditions such as Hammurabi’s Code of Laws.
In those ancient days, if a house wall failed or a dam broke and flooded a field, the builder was required to make restitution. In Roman times the builder of an arched, elevated roadway was required to stand under it when the first load crossed it. Today’s fund managers do not face that test of fire. That’s too bad.
Thanks again for your submittal, but an investor must be constantly alert to the huge empirical mutual fund performance gap between past and future results. Always remember the strong regression-to-the-mean pull that exists in the investment marketplace.
Best Wishes.

It's hard to predict the future, especially in markets, but I live in Brazil and write about the financial markets down here for a living, and FWIW, my favorite analyst down here expects the real (currency) to fall to 3.2 to the dollar by year's end, and that the economy won't pick up till 2017 or so -- and that's if the government manages to overcome its own ideology and popular opposition and really does implement the economic plan they've outlined. I actually think they will, but it's not a sure thing. Things could get much worse too.
We all know analysts are often wrong, but I do think the odds are we're 10-20% and a year or so away from a bottom. Not a bad time to start buying, but I would dollar-cost-average in. Risks remain high. Other Latam countries (Peru, Colombia, Chile) are in better shape, but everyone knows that, so they're not as cheap.
You've got to remember when you analyse the fair value of Brazilian stocks that money market funds pay 12% interest, and you can get inflation-protected government bonds with a real return of about 7%. (In reais, of course, not dollars, so you've got currency risk, which I wouldn't want right now.) But when bonds pay so much, stocks should be cheap. You cannot compare Brazilian p/e ratios to those in the developed world or China.
My two centavos' worth.

I went to Publix today to trade Gold (currency) for Chips and Beer, you know what they said?..... Think I'll try the gas station or Wells Fargo for cash...you think? ....

You can buy and sell gold at the bank in Canada. http://www.scotiamocatta.com/products/faq.htm#How_do_I_sell?
As for the "buying groceries with gold"...old.
Edmond put it perfectly - gold is the monetary equivalent of an insurance policy.
"Mr. Siegel wrote a book. "Stocks for the long run" - or something like that. Wonder how well that would have sold in 1929 or 2008?"
Cheerleader Siegel predicted 2008 would be a good year, too. "By June, the subprime-mortgage disaster will ease. Although delinquencies will have risen, the foreclosure crisis will ebb as most lenders make deals with beleaguered mortgage holders. As the housing crisis eases, the flow of credit will return to more normal levels and lending will revive. However, home prices will keep falling or remain stagnant at best. Prices of real estate just got too high during the last boom, and down cycles for housing last much longer than they do for the stock market."
"Prospects for stocks. Shares should have a good year, returning 8% to 10%. Stocks will rise as economic growth picks up in the year's second half and head winds from the credit crisis ease. Earnings will take a hit in the first quarter of 2008, but profits will begin to recover by the second quarter. Stocks are reasonably valued, even when priced against poor earnings. Once earnings increase, stock returns will be considerably better. Financial stocks, by far the worst-performing sector in 2007, could well be the best in 2008."
(http://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T019-C000-S002-my-forecast-for-2008.html)

Hi guys!
I have a list. The criteria are: must play on Fidelity platform, NOT be closed, and reasonable E.R. Also, must be buying companies of less than $1 billion net worth. I have FSCRX. They do $2.4 billion, so I want smaller ones. WEMMX - I always liked Mario. He's a good stock picker. I think someone else on here said that also. His companies are $500 million on average.....it shows. He holds lots of cash (25%)....these are old numbers though. I'll give Mario one thing---he likes to hold a lot of companies. BMMYX - very small size-wise, and the managers can't find much of a track record. And for being so small, they seem to have a lot of holdings, a lot of healthcare....with bio in there. It worries me some. Any comments on this fund would be appreciated. WTMIX - small fund size....lots of holdings....financial and healthcare are the two biggest parts. I'm not a big fan of Westcore for the most part. This fund holds really small stuff. After looking it over, I must say I like this fund. Any comments would be appreciated. The managers haven't done much more than than this fund. FAMFX - $65 million, only 29 holdings. I like that. I want your best ideas. With so little money to use, it's like, "Show me what you got!" I really, really like this fund. What say you? Next to MAMO, I like this. I know it's new. Please let me know if I missed any......
God bless!
the Pudd

I confess to not having read the linked article first. So I earlier offered-up only a "flippant" take on Cramer and the financial media, assuming that was the topic of the thread. Having looked at MJG's response and at several others, I was motivated to go back and read the article. It's not about Cramer at all. He simply conveys an observation that's often repeated and probably as old as mutual funds themselves.
Gary Gensler (ironically, the brother of a prominent T. Rowe Price fund manager of the day) co-authored "The Great Mutual Fund Trap" in 2002 urging investors to eschew actively managed mutual funds in favor of index funds and ETFs for reasons similar to what Cramer is stating. The book was well received by the public.
The topic receives frequent attention on this board in various ways. When we talk about "bloated" funds that fail and blame management for putting AUM above long-term performance, we touch on the issue.
The proposition Cramer, Gensler and many others put forth sounds logical. And where there's logic, there's usually a great deal of truth. You probably can't completely eliminate the motivation fund management has to grow their funds, thereby increasing AUM and profits. It's an aspect of our capitalist system. However, if like me, you choose to invest in actively managed funds, there are some things you can do to help reduce the pain.
- Look at fees (especially the fund's "expense ratio") and select funds with relatively low ones. "A penny saved is a penny earned" might well apply here - especially when compounding is taken into consideration.)
- Never pay front loads or commissions,
- Consider the reputation of the fund firm. Some appear to value long-term fudiciary-client relationships more highly than others and are therefore more inclined to build and manage funds that work over the long term.
- Favor diversified "Steady Eddy" funds over the "Flash-in-the-Pan" hot performers. Fees are usually lower because they trade less. And, there's less "skimming" of profits by hot money moving in and out. These funds often represent the Crown Jewels of the firm and so they have great incentive to retain great managers and limit asset growth.
Added Note: While not too impressed with how well the M* X-Ray discects portfolio holdings for me (It's about as reliable as their attempts to put funds into straight-jacket categories), I do appreciate that it calculates the average ER paid on all of your funds. That feature alone makes it worth using.
Link to Gensler's book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Mutual-Fund-Trap/dp/0767910710

@Scott: Good perspective.
There's no silver bullet to investing. To an extent, we are blinded by the times in which we invest. I'll listen to just about anyone. Doesn't mean I have to follow their advice.
In terms of making sense of investing ... Pick up 2 or 3% here; 10% there; and another 25% somewhere else. Isn't that really how we learn?
I find Cramer a likable sort, although full of bluster. Perhaps he's misplaced in the role of financial commentator. Can you imagine him in the role of TV Weatherman? :)

TB .. isn't PHSZX closed to new investors? I have not been able to find it - maybe only to those with financial advisors? Thanks

I am not excited about this. They didn't do this to try to help the little guy. I think asset bloat is on the way. The reasons for the sale (from their press release):
- $27 billion in assets under management and advisement and more than 250 professionals nationwide located in three key U.S. business centers: Houston, San Francisco and New York;
-Increased scale and national reach, which will allow the firm to better serve institutional investors and financial advisors ; and
- A diverse suite of innovative asset allocation and alternative strategies designed to allow investors the opportunity to create diversified portfolios or enhance their existing portfolios.
So they will have greater scale and reach, but the fees will be the same.

And that's the problem with a lot of news. It comes full of opinions presented in a way that leads people to have political opinions, Fox News on the right and most of the others on the left.
But aren't we all at fault? We listen, we allow our thoughts and actions to be adjusted and we promulgate the problem. As much discussion as there's been on this board about our educational system failing to provide financial training, I think we don't do a particularly good job of teaching people to think critically and form their own opinion either. That's one of the things I like about MFO- I think this is not a follow the herd crowd. Every once in a while it gets a little ugly, but I find that far more acceptable than all the crap we're exposed to elsewhere.

Never, I mean never, would have seen this coming. Wonderful fund, star managers often in the press, white-hot money piling in, fund taken over by a financial institution. You mean, there was the possibility of bloat and underperformance?
Never, I mean never saw that coming.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1251896/000089418915000721/aegis_497e.htm
497 1 aegis_497e.htm SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
AEGIS HIGH YIELD FUND
Class A (Ticker: AHYAX)
Class I (Ticker: AHYFX)
Supplement dated February 9, 2015
to the Summary and Statutory Prospectuses dated April 30, 2014
The Board of Trustees of The Aegis Funds (the “Trust”) has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Aegis High Yield Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders to cease Fund operations and wind down the Fund. At a meeting held on February 9, 2015, the Board of Trustees approved the closure of the Fund to all purchases, including purchases related to reinvestment of Fund distributions. The Board of Trustees has determined to close the Fund on or before April 30, 2015.
The Fund has been in a defensive position since December 17, 2014, and intends to remain in this position until the Fund is closed to facilitate anticipated redemptions. The Fund’s total net assets, which as of February 6, 2015 were approximately $16.8 million, are expected to decrease through the date of closing. Aegis Financial Corporation (the “Advisor”) has informed the Board of Trustees that it does not plan to extend the Fund’s current expense limitation agreement, pursuant to which the Fund’s “Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses After Fee Waiver and/or Expense Reimbursement” (not including Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses) are limited to 1.20% of the Class I shares’ average daily net assets and 1.45% of the Class A shares’ average daily net assets, past its current term, which expires April 30, 2015. As a result, after that date the Fund’s “Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses After Fee Waiver and/or Expense Reimbursement” (not including Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses) will increase.
Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section of the Prospectus. Redemption fees and contingent deferred sales charges (CDSC) will not be charged on shares redeemed beginning after market close on February 9, 2015. Unless a shareholder’s 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 Consequences of an Investment” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may find it advisable to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation, including the effects of a redemption of shares held through a tax-deferred retirement account.
If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact your financial intermediary or contact the Fund at 800-528-3780.
* * *
YOU SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT WITH YOUR
SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND PROSPECTUS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

"As senior columnist Jeff Benjamin wrote in last week's issue, any portfolio that earned a return equal to the Standard & Poor's 500 return was assuming too much risk. A diversified portfolio in stocks and bonds should have returned less than 5%"
Lets hope Jeff is not also a financial adviser (wizard), because if HE couldn't get more than 5% out of the market the last 6-7 years, he would be writing investment articles for a living......OH he is...sorry

FYI: It all comes down to this.
I wrote for the first edition of The Wall Street Journal Sunday. It seems fitting I should help bring down the curtain with this column that will appear in its final edition.
Parting thoughts? With my final words, here are five notions that—I believe—are indispensable to a happier financial life.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-ways-to-a-happier-financial-life-2015-02-07/print

Last paragraph sums it up for me !
Insurers continue to have a spotty reputation for charging such fees. “Most insurers service their annuity clients in the same way John Dillinger serviced banks,” says William Bernstein, a well-known author of financial books. “I wouldn’t trust them at all to do this job in 401(k)s.” Treasury officials think differently.

"The surging U.S. dollar and collapsing oil prices have dramatically changed the outlook for corporate earnings growth. Guidance from companies hasn’t been this poor since the depths of the Financial Crisis. At the end of the Q3, Wall Street had been expecting Q4 earnings of $32.24 (that’s the index-adjusted number). Now it looks like it will be about $27.64. That’s a big cut. At the end of Q3, the Street was expecting full-year earnings for 2015 of $136.07. That’s now down to $119.76. That’s a 12% cut in four months. Stock prices haven’t responded nearly as much."
Read all about this, and more, through the below link ...
http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2015/02/cws-market-review-february-6-2015.html

Speaking of Sears, CNBC ran a story today. Different financial guru, similar story. Reading the comments, nobody believes the story.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102390278?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=102390278

If people believed the story, nearly half the float wouldn't be short.
People who've shopped there recently don't believe it in the comments. I went into a Sears store a few months back and the lack of care apparent in the store's upkeep was clearly visible.
The belief that the "Shop Your Way" campaign will save them is delusional and the idea that Sears will somehow be a big player online in an era of Amazon and other such companies is absurd. The theme that Sears is trying is simply an attempt to buy more time.
I learned something new in the comments section: "2 of the most incompetent CEOs that RSH has EVER had came from Sears/Kmart and were devotees/disciples of Eddie Lampert - Julian Day (who was head of Kmart when it came out of bankruptcy) and Jim Gooch. Both, just like Lampert, were $ people who knew and knows NOTHING about retail." If true, that's interesting.
The other issue that concerns me is that I have little confidence that this won't turn into a "Heads I Win, Tails I Win" for Lampert as he financially engineers himself a sweet payday while the company crumbles. I have absolutely no belief that he's looking out for anyone but himself and his hedge fund, as evidenced by the loan he gave the company backed by choice real estate. If I remember correctly, Berkowitz tried to participate in that via JOE (sorry Bruce, JOE is not your Berkshire, never was), but JOE was having none of it.
Lampert was screwed by 2008. If the real estate was the thing, he should have started it in motion the second he got there. Now the end result isn't nearly as certain (and as for the real estate story, while Sears has some "A" real estate, how much of it is "D" and "F") and the company has deteriorated significantly.
And what's with Berkowitz's mixture of buys and sells? If it's so freaking wonderful, why sell a share?
Dec 16, 2014 BERKOWITZ BRUCE R
Beneficial Owner (10% or more)
5,000 Indirect Purchase at $31.18 per share. 155,900
Dec 12, 2014 BERKOWITZ BRUCE R
Beneficial Owner (10% or more)
14,600 Indirect Sale at $31.99 per share. 467,054
Dec 11, 2014 BERKOWITZ BRUCE R
Beneficial Owner (10% or more)
7,000 Indirect Purchase at $32.04 per share. 224,280
Dec 10, 2014 BERKOWITZ BRUCE R
Beneficial Owner (10% or more)
8,000 Indirect Purchase at $32.31 per share. 258,480
Dec 2, 2014 BERKOWITZ BRUCE R
Beneficial Owner (10% or more)
12,700 Indirect Sale at $34.97 per share. 444,119
Dec 1, 2014 BERKOWITZ BRUCE R
Beneficial Owner (10% or more)
26,700 Indirect Sale at $35.65 per share. 951,855