Hi Slick,
I remember Rogers too from the Rukeyser show. But I never put 2+2 together and related the show's Owen Mills set with Price's nearby Maryland location. Always very level headed. Had some great years managing PRFDX, one of Price's oldest funds. His reputation grew from that early success. But than the fund fell out of favor for a number of years. Better recently I guess. Haven't followed it lately.

Thanks MSF! Sorry for saying 'a few years ago' - was trying to be helpful but was apparently imprecise. My bad.
Re our website -- that's quite strange. I'm on the 'old' site and am able to input 'Salient EM' and pull up the fund. I will bring this to the attention of the folks on the M*.com side.
W/re to the fee change, I misread it as well (or rather, I assumed if they were going to the bother of amending their fee table they were lowering the fees). I did some comparing of the before/after fee tables myself this morning but your analysis is more complete. If what you state is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, that's one of the more outrageous things I've seen.
Nice work.
Thanks.
Jeff Ptak
Morningstar

This election cycle may seem like it's been going on for years, but it's only been a bit more than a year since the Donald took his elevator ride, and just five days longer since Salient completed its acquisition of Forward. That didn't happen years ago, though it may feel that way.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-rode-escalator-2016-presidential-announcement/story?id=31801433 (candidacy announcement)
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/salient-partners-completes-acquisition-of-forward-management-300096863.html (June 10, 2015)
Salient's acquisition involved only the management company. Unlike most acquisitions, Salient didn't restructure the funds. Usually what happens is that shell funds (like shell corps) are created that absorb the old funds.
For example, here's the agreement for Wells Fargo's acquisition of Strong funds (dare I comment on one firm of questionable ethics acquiring another?):

each Acquiring Fund ... [shall] acquire substantially all of the assets and assume
substantially all of the liabilities of the Acquired Fund
SHELL ACQUIRING FUNDS...........The Acquiring Funds that have no assets or
liabilities as of the date of this Plan.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081400/000084051904000454/agreeandplan.txt (Exhibit from N-14AE filing dated 9/15/2004)
In contrast, looks like there was no reorganization of the Forward Funds. Further, even the management company did not change - Forward Management, not Salient, continued as the fund manager.

On June 9, 2015, Forward Management was acquired by Salient, an asset manager headquartered in Houston.... Subsequent to the acquisition, Forward Management continues to act as the investment advisor of the Funds as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Salient.

SAI, Jan 4, 2016.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/889188/000119312516420390/d102511d497.htm
So you are correct that technically, legally, these are still Forward Funds, unlike what happens in typical acquisitions, where the funds are restructured and the trusts change.
Regarding M*'s websites (plural) ... Try to find a fund beginning with "Salient EM" in the "classic" site's quote box. This comes up empty, but the site has no problem finding "Forward EM" funds. In contrast, the "beta" site gets it right - it finds the former, but does not recognize the obsolete Forward names. Calling this discrepancy a "feature" does not help matters.
The problem appears to be that M* is not keeping its "classic" database current. The resulting inconsistency between its websites merely adds to the confusion that Salient created by changing the funds' branding without changing their legal structure.
Finally, regarding the fee change. I misread the change - I should have looked at the older filings. This isn't a reduction in fees, but an increase. What changed was the addition of footnote (3) - a new fee "waiver" agreement, that actually results in higher fees getting charged.
What happened was that there had been a fee waiver agreement in place until May 1, 2014. The financials in the current (May 1, 2016) prospectus state that. That expired fee agreement may be found here.
As noted in footnote (2) to the fee table, the management company was unable to recoup the fees it waived because this fee agreement expired. So what it did was put a new agreement in place, with a higher expense limitation. For example, instead of limiting ER of the Investor shares to 1.34%, the expense will now be "limited" to 1.85%. Since the actual expenses are running "just" 1.74%, this new agreement allows the management company to recoup 0.11% (i.e. charge the full 1.85%). It had been unable to do that once the old agreement expired.
In other words, this looks like a money grab by the management company down to the very last minute.

An impressive group - especially Giroux & Vaselikiv whose been there a long time and has done a great job with high yield bonds.
Years ago, while deplaning on the tarmac at tiny Key West Airport (EYW), I followed some dude wearing a black suit (a bit out of place in Key West) and carrying a black briefcase that had "T. Rowe Price" prominately lettered on the side. On it was a conspicuous flashing red light. Top secret stuff maybe?
Perhaps such security features are common in such quarters - and I just don't associate enough with the upper crust. :)

Salient acquired Forward Funds a few years ago. (The filing nomenclature is likely just legacy/legal.) See here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/salient-partners-to-acquire-forward-management-300034259.html
I'd like to think our website's handling is helpful (to those that might, for whatever reason, be entering it by the old name), not confusing? Sorry if that's causing you aggravation.
The move to reduce fees of a soon-to-be-merged fund is extremely unusual. In general, they're charging the same freight all the way to the liquidation date, even with the usual cautions to investors that the fund might hold increasing amounts of cash, etc. What made this even stranger was their not reducing the fees by an even greater amount than they did -- if you're going to go to the trouble of reducing the fees then I guess why not cut deeper? The reduced fees are hardly low. In any event, given the rarity of this kind of thing, that led me to believe that they were keeping some shareclasses around but, yes, it's indeed possible that they're getting rid of the whole fund.
Regards,
Jeff Ptak
Morningstar

FYI: Last summer I watched Creed. It’s the latest movie in the “Rocky Balboa” series. One of the lines stands out. The movie’s lead character, Adonis Creed, asked Rocky how he had beaten his father. “I didn’t beat your father,” said Rocky. “Time takes everybody out. Time’s undefeated.”
It’s like that for most investors who try to beat the market. They might get lucky for a year or a decade. But if a low-cost index fund were a boxer, time would stand in its corner. According to the SPIVA scorecard, the S&P Composite 1500 Index beat 87.47 percent of U.S. actively managed stock funds during the ten years ending June 30, 2016.
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/does-factor-based-investing-work

This is a quality site concerning withdrawal scenarios. Need to read the detail to understand the chart output. Takes 111 years of historical data in one year time snapshots.
http://www.firecalc.com/
Problem being in today's world is that recent and possible future low rates have potentially tainted the age old 4% rule.

No one can give you 'the answer'. Here are some things to think about in developing your own answer:
1. At 76, presumably you are not trying to 'grow' your assets, and with your fixed costs covered, you re-invest the income, and presumably wish to conserve your assets. If that is the case, and you have 'won the game' -- meaning you have sufficient assets for your needs. Well, why keep playing the game, after the game is already won? If that assumption on my part is wrong, and you prefer to stay in the game, for whatever reason, then the answer is probably 'stay the course' -- so long as you will be copasetic with the results Mr. Market delivers.
2. If by 'bond bubble', you are implying the likelihood of a'popping' of the bubble, why stick around, at least in full-allocation mode? An investor can earn ~ 1% yield on near-cash or cash assets (e.g. "MINT", internet savings accts, etc.) Market-cap bond index products pay what now, something with a 2-handle in terms of yield? If the answer is you want the marginally higher income, that is a true answer. But consciously accept, stability of income may be at odds with stability of principal, especially when asset values are rich. You have to understand what is of primary importance to you, the income, or the value of your principal, then decide what to do.
3. If your 'bond bubble' diagnosis becomes reality and the bond market drops, expect stocks to fall in sympathy with bonds. Both asset classes benefitted from Q/E & ZIRP; IMO it would self-serving and delusional to expect that stocks will soar while/if bond prices drop. Often, stocks are more frenetic in their price moves than bonds. So reallocating principal from bonds to equities, probably won't DE-risk a portfolio. In fact, it may have the opposite effect.
4. Lastly, and I am sure you know this, a decision to buy, hold, or sell is never a 'final decision'. Circumstances may change tomorrow, and you can reverse your decision.
I'm about 25 years your junior. Still in accumulation mode, but expecting to retire early in 4 years. Except for the whole health-insurance issue, I could retire now, spend principal, and not have another worry. So, I've no intention of exposing all of my assets to the vississitudes of Mr. Market here --- which might risk delaying my retirement. Especially with most asset classes trading 'rich'. But that is me. You are in a different place. Your fixed costs are covered. The question is to what degree to you wish to expose your assets to Mr. Market -- and for what purpose? Does the marginal income/return you derive from holding rich assets adequately compensate for the risk of holding richly-priced assets? Ultimately, only you can answer that question. Nobody else can.

Get in line @ Blackstone ! From The Blackstone Group LP (BX) Q3 2016 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
In the past 12 months alone, our limited partners, we call them LPs, have entrusted us with nearly $70 billion in new capital which despite $38 billion in realizations brings us to another record for assets under management of $361 billion. We continue to see strong positive growth in every one of our businesses. Blackstone continues to be the solutions provider our limited investors need, perhaps now more than ever in a world of sluggish growth, record low interest rates, high public market valuations, the resulting very low returns for most asset classes. These challenges seem likely to persist for some time which is causing real problems for LPs.
Here is a pretty stunning fact. In the past 10 quarters, we have raised nearly $200 billion, more than the aggregate size of any of our domestic alternative peers. And given the secular forces driving capital into the alternatives, we continue to nicely grow combined with Blackstone's powerful and unique competitive position. I remain quite optimistic in our ability to keep growing with one of the largest, if not the largest, platforms in each vertical area, Private Equity, Real Estate, Hedge Funds and Credit. We are able to accept and responsibly deploy billions of dollars from individual LPs which is a critical capability that few, if any, other firms can offer
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4016086-blackstone-group-lp-bx-q3-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
Bloomberg Gadfly Take by Gillian Tan Oct 27, 2016 3:58 PM EDT
Stephen Schwarzman, the billionaire chairman, CEO and co-founder of Blackstone Group, is accustomed to having people pay attention to his point of view, whether it's in a meeting room at the firm's Park Avenue headquarters or in his capacity as a philanthropist. But he seems to have trouble getting his message across when it comes to Blackstone's shares.
Disconnect
Blackstone, like its peers, has struggled to win over investors.
As the firm's biggest shareholder with a stake of roughly 20 percent, Schwarzman has gone to lengths to persuade investors that Blackstone deserves a higher valuation -- even going so far as walking through the math of his argument -- but his words have fallen on deaf ears. On an earnings call Thursday, after the New York firm easily beat analysts' expectations thanks to sales of real estate assets, he resorted to sarcasm. "Who needs yield when you can invest at 1 percent in government bonds?" he dryly asked, after referring to the fact that Blackstone's dividend yield is markedly higher than that.
.....potential shareholders should remember that the yield isn't as airtight as, say, a U.S. Treasury bond. Blackstone's ability to pay dividends fluctuates every quarter and is driven in part by the firm's ability to profit from its activities across various arms, such as by selling off real estate or other investments as it has done in recent years. Still, there's little likelihood that the dividend will disappear completely, owing to the diversity of Blackstone's holdings
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-27/blackstone-yield-appeal-is-schwarzman-s-latest-valuation-argument

bee said, "Is TROW a good buy or is PRWCX about to correct?"
@bee Wouldn't touch your question with a 10 foot pole - make that 15' :)
Here's a link back to TRP about the $194M write-off they took back in June after botching a proxy vote on Dell. https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/corporate/en/press/t--rowe-price-to-compensate-clients-for-dell-voting-error.html This received a lot of press (mostly favorable) back in June and was broadly lauded as testament to the firm's integrity and shareholder commitment. (I don't recall any discussion here.) But I'd imagine it impacted their share price. The WSJ appears to have more on this - but I have trouble reading it without a subscription, so didn't link them.
PRWCX, BTW, isn't having a particularly good year after several great ones. Manager has become very cautious on the market and is no doubt dealing with bloat - though it's now closed to new investors. If one wanted to have some fun with play money (assuming he/she held a favorable opinion of the firm) he might invest 50/50 in both the company and PRWCX and than rebalance periodically.
The future of T. Rowe? It's tough out there. They're small-fry compared to Vanguard, Blackrock and a few other giants. There's been a shift from actively managed funds to low cost passive funds and ETFs going on for many years now and I see no signs of it abating. Over the past year, if my reading of Barrons serves me well, Price experienced net outflows - though not as severe as Oppenheimer and some other active managers. I'd expect continued shrinkage or consolidation among companies in their segment of the market.
---
PS: Asset managers are to an extent subject to the whims of the markets. In a sharply declining equity market AUMs fall - reducing profits. This interplay between investors' and advisors' outlooks for equity markets and the re-pricing of asset managers like Price is far too complex for my feeble mind to understand. But it's not inconceivable that (future) market expectations are impacting TROW's valuation. (PRWCX would be expected to hold up better during a sharp correction than TROW.)

Interesting... the stock price of TROW is trading at its lowest price in over a year. In fact, you have to go back to its 4 year low (Sept 2012) to match today's stock price. The stock is up 36% over the last ten years which included the 2009 great-cession.

Over the past 10 years TROW has more often out performed PRWCX, but that is not the case over the past year and half. (TROW in Yellow). Is TROW a good buy or is PRWCX about to correct?

Here's the most recent three performance of the two:

Just more of what has been occurring the past many months. Let's hope this move is for real and not a fake out like so many in the past several years.

Looks like it lasted then than 2 years.
Had amassed < $30 MM in AUM.

EM bonds:
FNMIX...... 10 year performance: +7.85%
PREMX: +6.87%.
Small-cap Value: TRP (PRSVX:) +6.92%
PRDGX (TRP LC Div. Growth:) +7.3%
Balanced: PRWCX: +8.16%
MAPOX: +6.81%
Global Bonds: PRSNX: (5 years) +4.94%. Too young for a 10-year number. By the way, MAINX will be 5 years old, soon. I no longer own it. But it looks good.

According to the latest SPIVA US Mid-Year report, over the past 10 years (includes 2008 downdraft) 81.94% and 81.82% of actively managed EM equity and EM bond funds, respectively, were outperformed by their benchmark indices.
Also, as I see it, many of the actively managed EM equity funds that have outperformed the indices, tend to have done so over relatively short time periods (BEXFX - since 2010, SIGIX - since 2012), and have a significantly different average market cap (SIGIX) and EM stock exposure (SIGIX) than the comparison benchmark.
SPIVA
Kevin

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: It doesn’t seem like much to ask for—a 5 percent return. But the odds of making even that on traditional investments in the next 10 years are slim, according to a new report from investment advisory firm Research Affiliates.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2016-10-26/the-next-10-years-will-be-ugly-for-your-401-k

"Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index's low costs overcome concerns about country weightings," writes Oey in her latest analyst report.

I'm not sure I follow that line of reasoning. Is she saying that, if the cost of an index (or, for that matter, any MF) is low enough, you need not be concerned by a portfolio's very overweighted/skewed allocation? Because the low cost "overcomes" any concerns one might have? How does that work?

I don't follow it either, and here's an example of how that reasoning might "work" in practice, in dollars and cents, comparing, for the sake of argument, VEIEX to BEXFX over the past five full calendar years.
VEIEX's E.R. is lower by 1.12% a year, but it trailed BEXFX in total return (including E.R., of course) by 4.31% in 2015, 3.05% in 2014, 19.9% in 2013, 4.34% in 2012, and 1.58% in 2011 -- so not a single year represented when its lower E.R. made a difference in relative performance. (Data from M* performance pages.)

In the vein of "a fresh look" at MLPs, I was doing some semi-purposeful browsing around this past weekend and came upon a change in June re. how FSDIX will be allocated, viz. the addition of MLPs to the dvd-paying stock sleave (up to 10%, oh yes). Fidelity is thinking of it as a strategy "enhancement":
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/analysis/316145887

Joanna Bewick on upcoming enhancements to the fund:
"In June 2016, a new out-of-benchmark subportfolio providing dedicated exposure to MLPs – master limited partnerships – will be created within the fund's dividend-paying equities allocation. This as of yet unfunded subportfolio will allow Ford and me to opportunistically allocate as much as 10% of fund assets to MLPs.
"An MLP combines the benefits of a limited partnership – a business structure wherein taxes apply only to unitholder distributions and not to corporate-level profits – with the liquidity of a publicly traded company. We think MLPs are a potentially rich source of investment yield as well as predictable and stable cash distributions. Most often, MLPs are backed by energy companies, with typically modest organic revenue growth that can increase alongside inflation; thus we believe MLPs also offer potential for capital appreciation.
"In our view, the addition of the MLP subportfolio can help improve the fund's risk-adjusted returns by providing key diversification benefits. Further, this change may offer the fund a diversifying source of alpha in keeping with its mandate to deliver non-bond income along with capital-appreciation potential.
"Nathan Strik, a 10-year energy veteran with 15-years of industry experience, has been appointed portfolio manager for the new MLP subportfolio.
"We believe these changes should improve our asset allocation flexibility and allow us to take greater advantage of the investment expertise of Fidelity in positioning the fund to better meet our shareholders' expectations.
"For more than 10 years, the fund has offered a compelling option for non-bond, income-seeking investors, in our view. Our goal with the addition of this new MLP subportfolio is to help make the fund an even more compelling investment option for the next 10 years – and beyond."

I hope this isn't redundant; I don't recall anyone on the Board posting about it.

TD has minimum buys of 100 and 250 on the low-end for many funds I've stumbled across over the years, so I think you'd probably be okay.

@LLJB. I've successfully gotten over falling in love with ANY fund. So I don't want my shares to be grandfathered. I'm okay selling any fund. My problem is I don't want them charging my hefty commissions.
What about $100 minimum to buy? Schwab started and Scottrade and Etrade followed. Dunno about Ameritrade.