Can't find any source where Icahn used the word "crash". Also, the market doesn't have to "crash" in order for him to make money on his position; it merely has to decline. And he has seemed to have chosen a reasonable point in the market's history at which to initiate such a position ( multiple years of gains and recent new highs, rich valuations by some measures, interest rate tightening cycle, etc. ) He just needs the economic growth data to slow a little more.
Icahn can basically say " you can invent all of the narrative ( the mainstream financial media ) that you want about my investment moves, I got the money ! "

Dex, you are comparing the charts of two open end funds where dividends accumulate daily and paid out end of month vs an ETF where dividends are handled differently and show as a decline on the charts end of month.

Dex?, OK I'll play. Dan,
I compared HYD with HYG. HYG is beating HYD YTD. But if you look at other time periods, 1, 2, 5 - HYD wins. HYG is slightly ahead in 10 years by 1.75 pct pts. Max HYG is better by less than 9 pct pts.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HYD+Interactive#{"range":"ytd","allowChartStacking":true}

Good Day to You,
When I was seventeen, it was a very good year.....or so the lyric goes.
Well, 17 was a long time ago for this one. Now to begin to leave one of my active lovers.
If one is of the mind, passion and spirit for investing; the rewards, satisfaction and a form of love may leave a smile upon the face. While 50 ways (reasons) are not needed to leave an investing lover, one will likely determine a few key personal points.
Needless to say, the group here are not one's normal invest monies in a 401k, 403b, 457 or some form of IRA just to build a retirement account. We here tend to "fiddle" with whatever is available to our accounts.
Understanding/knowing the difference between being a passive or active investor is of value; as long as one also understands that he/she is likely active in managing choices which fall into a passive investment vehicle.
The exceptions that come to mind are when one uses an advisor, be it human or robo. But, one has still made an active choice about this, too.
So........the plan for this house for a total portfolio:
---75% VWINX , 65% IG bonds, 35% U.S. stocks, active managed
---15% FSPHX , healthcare, active managed; also included, DPLO (Diplomat Pharma stock)
---10% FRIFX , a different real estate active managed fund with a history of 50/50 stocks/bonds
We have a percentage of all of these now, but will sell other holdings to accommodate the above numbers.
For those interested, the below links present more information (click on the other tabs at the top, aside from these composition links:
--- VWINX , composition
This fund has superior returns for many years. Yes, it is subject to the markets not unlike any other fund.
--- FSPHX , composition
We still remain tilted towards the health sector and the many sectors within health related. Although this sector has been getting the whack during the past 6 or so months; our holdings average total return for the past several years remain most decent.
--- FRIFX , composition
You won't find an easy method for ranking in a category list for real estate, as this fund doesn't fit the normal holdings positions for this category, being about 50% bonds. As normal, we look for total return over a time frame; versus which fund is having the most fun, say, within a 1 or 2 year period.
--- DPLO , A specialty pharmacy. This company IPO'd in October of 2014. We purchased near the IPO price, having been very familiar with the quality of the organization during its 25 years of being private. We continue to hold this stock.
https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/goto/evaluate/snapshot.jhtml?symbols=DPLO&type=o-NavBar
As we investors are always subject (or should be subject to change) to change, the following holdings will be liquidated; market conditions allowing (no black swans, etc. allowed), from some accounts outside of Fidelity.
---BRUIX , DPRRX , BAGIX , DGCIX , OPBYX , VIIIX , GPROX , PRHSX , HEDJ , FHLC , ITOT
NOTE: all monies are tax sheltered accounts without current tax implications
We'll arrive at a conservative/moderate balanced account holding. As with all individual investors, such mixes are subject to "the eyes of the beholder" function as to how the balance suits their needs and views. The investment mix is mostly biased towards U.S. markets and companies, although at this time; about 20% of the holdings relate to other than U.S. One would also expect these holdings to generate greater than 20% of earnings/yields from sources outside of the U.S. going forward and providing some international exposure by this method.
Lastly, a large core holding in VWINX may be reasonably argued to possibly cause harm to an overall portfolio going forward due to its large percentage holdings in IG bonds. The main argument being that IG bonds have had one heck of a run for much too long. One may suppose that the "odds" factor such an argument. I will note again the phrase "that this time is different" since the market melt of 2008. Of course it is, eh? We live in a most dynamic investing world. At the very least, central banks and related polices operate upon the egos of the members. Who in these groups would want to look bad in the eyes of financial history? I suspect the central banks will continue to surprise many making decisions based upon every available form of data mining to obtain desired outcomes. Our house is still "betting" upon the investment grade bonds. This is no less as scary as the equity markets discovering flaws in the system, not yet known. With VWINX as the example, an investor will reap 35% of the up or down of the given equity holdings and 65% of the up or down of the investment grade bond holdings for a "total" result.
Remain or become fully flexible and adaptable, not just to your perception of the investing marketplace; but more importantly, to and for yourself and those important in your life.
This "personal overview" is likely incomplete; but will suffice for the time being.
Comments welcomed.
Regards,
Catch

I think, what he means in "I am going for it ..." The door!
But, not me. I am staying with my asset allocation ranges. I'll have ample cash to raise my equity allocation from its low range of 45% towards its high range of 55% when I feel warranted. Besides if investors begin to run for the door when the market (S&P 500 Index) is only off its 52 week high by about 4% I wonder what they might do should there be a 10% pullback, or more. I'll be a buyer in equites somewhere around the 1920 range (S&P 500 Index) should we get there during the summer. I have been adjusting my allocation to equities over the past few years from a high range of 65%+ downward because I felt they were overvalued and somewhat overbought. Once, we get through the fall elections I am looking for a nice late fall stock market rally to develop. Anyway, this is how I am currently positioned and will ramp up my allocation in equities depending on how the investing landscape developes. I am thinking that third and fourth quarter corporate earnings will begin to improve and provide the needed fuel to support the rally. In addition, I am looking for the FOMC to raise interest rates to cool inflation as my rolling twelve month inflation number might surprise you with a reading of better than six percent from May 2015 through April 2016.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."

I received an account statement from the new transfer agent (and one from the prior agent) reflecting the change over to Chartwell. I have not seen a link to access my accounts at the new agent (it was not listed on my statement either). I think I am going to liquidate both of my positions in Berwyn and Berwyn Income Funds very shortly.
I see my "no" vote on the reorganization did not matter much. I was hoping for more from the reorganization than two years of expenses frozen, i.e. possibly receiving "I" shares, and see no hope of closing the Berywn Income Fund in sight in order to generate more fee income for Chartwell.

The 2015 Annual Report gave an explanation for the deal as "a plan that aims to assist in [the funds'] continued growth and success, beyond [CEO Robert Killen's] retirement" - which will apparently be in 2018. Other than that paragraph in the report and subsequent proxy materials, communication with shareholders has been nearly nonexistent. The Berwyn Funds website made no reference to the acquisition; one day a Chartwell link showed up at the bottom of the page, and Chartwell showed up as the listed advisor. This month, I got transaction confirmations for the exchange of shares in the Berwyn Funds for shares in the (Chartwell) Berwyn Funds.
It's difficult to see what we get out of the deal other than a vague sense of a succession plan that had to go outside the fund advisor. Chartwell has agreed to waive fees above the ERs that Berwyn charged - until 2018. They have a different distributor and do not offer online access to our accounts. From what I can tell, what we gained was less service, the threat of higher expenses in a couple years, and new branding on our statements (which we can't get online).

Hi msf,
Thank you for your post. It is always a benefit to hear the case for a divergent opinion. In investing, like in most everything else, the rule rather than the exception is “Different Strokes for Different Folks”. To use another mundane and popular idiom, “We March to a Different Drummer”.
It would be an unlikely and a unique set of circumstances if we all agreed on investment decisions and financial advice. That’s not the way of a free and informed marketplace.
I am an amateur investor without any specific formal financial education except for college-level economics course work. When I started investing over 60 years ago, I knew next to nothing. The few things that I thought I knew were more wrong than right.
During my very early learning years, private financial advisers and powerhouse mutual fund heavy organizations like Fidelity introduced me to the ins-and-outs of the investment game in a fair and balanced way.
Sure the folks I was exposed to were aggressive, but they were also honest. Perhaps I was lucky; I suspect not. There are far more honest and trustworthy folks than frauds and cheaters. That’s true in all professional disciplines like engineering, construction work, doctoring, lawyering, and in the financial communities.
Yes, some bad apples exist and prosper for awhile, but not for very long. Justice happens; scoundrels go to jail. Today, the Information Age exposes them rapidly, and the charlatans and short-changers don’t survive.
I don’t want to seem especially Pollyanna in the investment arena. Some hucksters are always present and offering deals that are too good to be true. Caution and prudence must be exercised in all instances. A healthy skepticism and some fundamental research is a workable preventive cure with just a little effort.
I suspect that you and I agree on some of the points made by Jason Zweig in this article and on most of his viewpoints in his general writings. He does document his work with great care. By the way, I was aware of the advisor code’s existence, but am not familiar with its details.
Thanks again for agreeably presenting the other side of the equation to balance this discussion.
Best Wishes.

Few here will remember that this fund made a lot of money for investors in the early part of the new millennia (roughly 1999-2005). I enjoyed double digit returns during some of those years as oil slowly climbed towards the $100 range. I bought the Class A shares in 1997 shortly after Oppenheimer received approval from the SEC, seeking to diversify. It was an early forerunner in the commodities mutual fund area - possibly the first such fund.
Actually, the fund did not hold pork bellies, lumber or barrels of crude, but invested in the commodities futures markets using derrivitives which allowed most of the fund's assets to sit in T-Bills or cash, earning additional income. A black box? Yes - for certain. But something happened in roughly the 2003-2005 period when they temporarily closed (to all new money) what had been a successful fund. Investors received a letter stating that Oppenheimer had uncovered structural weaknesses in how the fund was being operated which might cause significant losses and that it would be restructured over the coming months to reduce these risks. (I'm relying here on best recollections.)
When the fund reopened to new money, it wasn't the same fund. It became a perineal looser. As Ted's article mentions, the fund was clobbered by the worst commodities bear market in recent history. But it wasn't managed well either and also carried close to a 2% ER on Class A shares.
I took a gamble in early 2015 and converted my entire holding with Oppenheimer (5-10% of assets) to Roth. All was in this fund. It was a calculated risk that the fund would bounce sharply. But it never did and dropped another 15-20%. What saved my skin, so to speak, was that in early September '15 I split that money 4-ways. 25% remained in QRAAX. 25% each went into OPGSX (gold), OREAX (Real Estate) and OEMAX (EM bonds). All three of the new funds experienced sharp rebounds after that point. The Roth is now back to break-even. Even QRAAX has had a pretty good year so far (up 6.6%).
As noted earlier, I have little money with these guys. Looks to me like the quality of many of their funds has fallen during the 2 decades since I purchased shares. Since it appeared they were planning on returning the $$ from the liquidation directly to investors rather than reinvesting it automatically (which would have tax repercussions), I moved the money myself to their Capital Income Fund (OPPEX) for the time being. This amounts to moving from one black box into another. However, the new black box appears better managed.
:)
Added note: Really appreciate the Shadow's heads-up on this pending fund liquidation. Nice to be informed early.

IMHO this is a lot to pay for convenience. These days, I'll buy what's cheapest, with convenience being secondary. How hard is it to purchase/sell via ACH? So that might mean buying directly from the fund or paying a TF to come out cheaper in the long run. The only time I buy NTF funds is when I like the fund and can live with the ER (and the fund can't be purchased more cheaply by buying direct).

Thanks for bring this to our attention. Unless there are real compelling reasons, I have gradually moved away from NTF funds in the past 10 years, and some are already high to begin with. For sure these discount brokerages want their piece of pie or two.

Over the years on M F O,these ideas and others have been mentioned in the ag/farm thesis,many by @scott
NASDAQ:CRESY
NASDAQ:LMNR
OTCMKTS:BWEL
NASDAQ:ALCO
Income issue ideas.
CHSCO
NASDAQ:CHSCP
Also fertilizer companies and seed genetics although with more volatility.
I own and reinvest dividends in LAND, FPACX, OTCRX
Millennials spending is accelerating, new demands for healthier foods and using e-commerce
Calavo Growers (CVGW) MasterCard (MA)
http://www.ottercreekfunds.com/media/pdfs/OCL_Call_Presentation_1Q20161.pdf
LAND a real estate investment trust, or R E I T LAND
The geographic regions where our farms are located continues to experience steady appreciation
We currently own 23,456 acres on 47 farms in seven states in the United States. We also own some cooling facilities, packing houses, and processing facilities as well; there is several other structures on the farms. These are part of the farming operation on our farms.
We have a couple of different lease structures that we use for our tenants and we have been extremely successful in our leasing strategy. We've been able to average an average annual increase of over 16% on lease renewals over the past three years.
There are no new farms being developed in most of these areas because all of the arable land is currently being farmed or it has already been converted to other uses, such as housing, schools, or factories.
The trend that we are seeing is a steady decrease in a number of farms in our growing regions have been sold or converted to suburban uses. So California alone has been losing about 100,000 acres of farms per year. This has caused the farms that we own to be highly sought after and they have been rented for decades without ever being vacant.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/edited-transcript-land-earnings-conference-174914965.html
Farmland Partners Inc:FPI
Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate
http://ir.farmlandpartners.com/file.aspx?iid=4426904&fid=33287632
FPACX owns 0.31% of assets here.Very small position in a $17 bil fund.
U.S. FARMING REALTY TRUST I, 0.07%
35,000,000 U.S. FARMING REALTY TRUST II, 0.24%
TOTAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS: 53,567,775.00 0.31%
The sponsor of those trusts offered another opportunity last year.Maybe they"ll put together another in the future . Save your money for the minimum! Probably only available to "accredited Investors"
Issuer
U.S. Farming
Realty Trust III,
LP
/s/ Charlie
McNairy
Charlie McNairy
Manager, International
Farming Corporation
GP3, LLC
2015-07-17
11. Minimum Investment
Minimum investment accepted from any outside investor
$ 1,300,000
http://b4utrade.brand.edgar-online.com/efxapi/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingCONVPDF1?SessionID=CzTMe5a8UvZMR8Y&ID=10812508
With a glass of wine. American Farmland Company.AFCO
http://www.americanfarmlandcompany.com/portfolio.html
NY Times Business Day from 07/22/14
Cash Crops With Dividends
How a few sophisticated investors found a way to transform
strawberries into securities. Copyright © 2014 by The New York Times Comp
http://investors.americanfarmlandcompany.com/Cache/1001205369.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1001205369&iid=4589976
Not Always Wine and Roses
American Farmland Announces Review of Strategic Alternatives
Company Release - 4/14/2016 4:01 PM ET
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- American Farmland Company (NYSE MKT:AFCO) (the “Company”), a specialized real estate investment trust focused on the ownership, acquisition, development and management of a portfolio of diversified, high-quality U.S. farmland, today announced that its Board of Directors has authorized the Company to commence a review of strategic alternatives to enhance shareholder value.
Since the Company’s October 19, 2015 initial public offering, its shares have consistently traded at a substantial discount to net asset value which, as of December 31, 2015, was estimated to be $10.05 per share. The Company’s net asset value is based upon independent third-party appraisals of its farms which were performed as of December 31, 2015. The Company has retained Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Raymond James & Associates, Inc. as its financial advisors and Goodwin Procter LLP as legal counsel to assist in a comprehensive analysis of all potential strategic alternatives. Alternatives to be explored may include, among others, joint venture arrangements, a merger of the Company, or a sale of all or part of the Company and/or its assets
http://investors.americanfarmlandcompany.com/file/Index?KeyFile=33849746

It's not looking so good for farmland; some similarities to the picture of the mid-1980s, when a lot of family farms got overextended and were crushed and lost everything. But not that dire (yet), so I don't anticipate that much calamity. It's just gonna take some time for the fundamentals to improve.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-14/american-farmer-its-death-1000-knives”-us-farmland-values-plunge-most-30-years
https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/agletter/2015-2019/may-2016-pdf.pdf?la=en
Nonetheless, many of the TBTF banksters went into farmland in a big way in the mid-00s and bought up what they could (and, of course, "financialized/securitized" it), so I'd hesitate investing in anything publicly-traded because I'd be concerned I'd be encouraging the corporate farming trend and hastening the demise of a way of life I think is very important to preserve (not to mention the loss of local control and good environmental stewardship).
On the other hand, there are a number of farmers in the Midwest who are continuing to pool their needs into some rather substantial cooperative businesses, and I've seen several interesting preferred stock offerings, with good yields and very ample dvd coverage, if you wanted to invest for income with a margin of safety. However, I haven't pulled that string because it was my impression, the deeper I went in researching them, that they are very tightly-held, and one would have to put in many buy orders, over time, to ever get lucky and have one filled. Not my territory.... could be dead wrong about it. Anyone who knows something about how to buy stuff so off the beaten path, please take me to school!

Seems every year or two a thread along this line comes up, discussing how much funds pay the supermarkets to participate either NTF or TF. I ran across a sizeable M* column from two years ago that goes into detail.
Morningstar, NTF Platforms Can Mean Higher Costs (November 6, 2014)
Highlighting a bit of the column: "Oddly, those fees have gone up since the 1990s ... despite the fact that technology has made servicing fund accounts much cheaper. ... Indeed, NTF fees may have risen to compensate for declining trading revenues".
Let me quantify that a bit. Schwab OneSource (NTF) started in 1992. At the time, Schwab charged 0.25% (sometimes as much as 0.35%) That actually made economic sense for boutiques that couldn't service directly sold accounts for less. Not for Vanguard of course, but for many smaller funds.
Over time, the rates rose. According to the WSJ, in 2003 Schwab's typical fee, which had already risen to 0.35% was raised to 0.40%. In addition, Schwab started charging TF funds for the first time. The original fee was $20/account/year. The article goes on to note that families like Longleaf and Yacktman balked (so they were closed to new investments). But Schwab didn't impose the fee on Fidelity or Vanguard.
WSJ, Schwab Fees Steer Some Funds to the Exits, Others Get a Pass (May 5, 2003) - link is google search, pick first result.
Today, the fees are even higher. NTF fees are typically 0.40%, but can go as high as 0.45%. TF funds now typically pay 0.10% (but as high as 0.25%) per year in addition to the aforementioned $20/account/year (which can go as high as $30).
Schwab Compensation Disclosure
IMHO this is a lot to pay for convenience. These days, I'll buy what's cheapest, with convenience being secondary. How hard is it to purchase/sell via ACH? So that might mean buying directly from the fund or paying a TF to come out cheaper in the long run. The only time I buy NTF funds is when I like the fund and can live with the ER (and the fund can't be purchased more cheaply by buying direct).
Older thread on same topic:
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/15542/how-much-do-fund-companies-pay-to-be-on-fund-supermarket-platforms

Dig a bit deeper on Royce -- look at how many of their funds have significant stakes in international stocks (say, above 5-7% or so). Some have topped 25% or more. Look at how many of them regularly hold mid-caps (hence the reason Royce refers to themselves "small-er cap" specialists).
Yet their benchmark is always one of the US small cap index. That is, when they list a benchmark. You see, in Royce's annual and semi-annual reports for funds that are having a bad stretch, they suppress some rolling intervals, as well as the benchmark returns and other performance metrics. And, no, its not just for the newer funds which don't have a sufficient track record. Nearly every single report for the past several years has done this -- and they're not consistent in which funds' data they suppress.
Don't let the bow tie fool you. Royce only wants your money. And if they don't have a fund that suits you, they'll re-name or create a parallel copy-cat fund to suit.

I just looked at the Royce web site. As we know they are "small cap specialists". They have 11 domestic small cap funds with 10 year records. How many of them would you guess were able to beat the 7.10% annualized returns of the Vanguard small-cap index fund VSMAX? Would you believe none? That's the fact.
So I looked at the 3 and five years returns. They are also batting an even .000 for those periods.
Are they not a marquee example of the damage that high fees, stock-picking mistakes, and trading can do? Is there something I am missing?
All those smart people going to work every day for 10 years!

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
May 13, 2016
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Bankers, financiers or money lenders, as they have been called derisively at various points in history are currently at one of their reputational low points. Presidential candidates from Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have all taken their shots. Sanders has introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act” which would break up the big banks.
Dislike of banks and bankers is not a modern phenomenon.
Thomas Jefferson once stated: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” You can see why he and Alexander Hamilton, who created the first national bank and was the first Treasury Secretary, had their disagreements!
Even some titans of industry have been critics. Henry Ford, the Founder of the Ford Motor Company was one of them, stating: “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
Luckily, that revolution never came. For the record, banking and Wall Street provide the essential fuel for economic growth, mainly money and credit. They enable individuals, companies and governments to raise capital, buy goods and services, build, expand and invest. As this week’s guest points out, the vast majority of us are bank customers!
Investing in financial stocks in recent years has been challenging. Over the last decade the S&P 500 Financials Index has delivered negative annualized returns whereas the S&P 500 has not. And although their annualized performance over the last five and three year periods has been close to 10%, the group has continued to underperform the market.
This week’s guest is Christopher Davis, a third generation value investor whose family has a long history of investing in financial stocks and continues to do so today. Davis is Chairman of Davis Advisors, Portfolio Manager of the Davis large cap portfolios, and Co-Portfolio manager since 1995 of the firm’s flagship Davis New York Venture Fund, which was founded by his Dad in 1969. Chris has also been the Portfolio Manager of the fund’s no-load equivalent, Selected American Shares since its launch in 2004. In 1991 he created the Davis Financial Fund, now celebrating its 25th anniversary.
Rated 4-stars by Morningstar, the fund has far outperformed its benchmark and the market since inception with better than 11% annualized returns. I began the interview by asking Chris why he created a fund focused on financial stocks in the first place.
If you’d like to see the show before it airs, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Davis about how his approach differs from his grandfather’s and father’s. It is available exclusively on our website.
WEALTHTRACK is also available on a YouTube Channel. So if you are unable to join us for the show on television, you can watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com, or by subscribing to our YouTube Channel.
Thanks for watching. Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo
M*: Davis Family Of Funds:
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/davis-funds/0C00001YWZ/fund-list.aspx
Selected Funds Website:
http://selectedfunds.com/funds/

What are the specific arguments for farmland? Not just more mouths to feed. I have Kansan friends who have talked for years about farm abandonment and the like.

The "best" fund in any category can be a moving target, but especially so with actively-managed EM funds. YTD vs. 3 Yrs? Does 10 years even matter? Some say yes, some say no. Because EM stocks carry higher volatility than developed international stocks (for the most part), there may be a reason to make relatively low volatility a key screen. If that is the case, Seafarer SFGIX is worth a look, even though it only has a 4 year record. Its 3-yr Sharpe ratio is ahead of the other EM funds we track. If you value management that separates itself from the index, Driehaus DREGX and Wasatch WAEMX might fit the bill, since they are small-cap focused. If high Sortino ratio (performance compared to downside risk) is important, SFGIX once again comes through. Just because an entire asset class tends to have high volatility does not mean you have to accept that in the funds you select. ODYMX has the best 10-year record (Leverenz having run the fund for 9 of the 10 years). American New World NWFFX has a darned good record, too. But understand it only has about 35% in EM stocks. And Seafarer is only 57% EM stocks, both of which explain the lower volatility. So there you go.

Obviously, Oppenheimer agreed with my assessment voiced just a week ago in the "What are you buying?" thread:
" ... I've taken a beating on QRAAX over past couple years. Unloaded most of it last fall on an uptick but continue to cling to a very small stake ... But really, somebody should take that one out to pasture and #*+*#.:)"
The dastardly deed's been done.

@MFO Members: For your information.
Regards,
Ted
FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Money management firm OppenheimerFunds Inc. is shutting down its nearly two-decade-old commodities fund, the firm said, following years of losses and underperformance.
Oppenheimer plans to liquidate the Commodity Strategy Total Return Fund “on or around” July 15, the firm said last week in a supplement to the fund’s prospectus.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=OppenheimerFunds+to+Shut+Down+Nearly+Two-Decade-Old+Commodities+Fund+
M* Snapshot QRAAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/QRAAX/quote.html

Yep, I'll tell you how the moving averages worked out 10 years from now!