https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217673/000119312525182599/d947285d497.htm
497 1 d947285d497.htm BARON SELECT FUNDS
Filed by Baron ETF Trust
pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act of 1933
Subject Company: Baron Select Funds
SEC File No. 811-06312 and 333-103025
Baron Select Funds®
Baron FinTech Fund®
Baron Technology Fund®
Supplement to Current Summary Prospectuses and Prospectus
For all existing and prospective shareholders of Baron FinTech Fund and Baron Technology Fund:
•Baron FinTech Fund and Baron Technology Fund (each, an “Acquired Fund”) will each be converted from a mutual fund into an exchange-traded fund (“ETF”), which is expected to occur on or about December 12, 2025.
•If you are an existing shareholder of an Acquired Fund, and your account can hold an ETF, your shares will be converted, and no action is needed by you.
•If you hold shares of an Acquired Fund in an account that cannot hold an ETF (i.e., your account is not permitted to purchase securities traded in the stock market), there are certain actions you can take. See the “Questions and Answers” section below for further information.
At a meeting held on August 5, 2025 (the “Meeting”), the Board of Trustees of Baron Select Funds (the “Acquired Fund Trust”) approved on behalf of the Acquired Funds and the Board of Trustees of Baron ETF Trust (the “Acquiring Fund Trust”) approved on behalf of Baron Financials ETF and Baron Technology ETF (each, an “Acquiring Fund” and together with the Acquired Funds, the “Funds”) (the Board of Trustees of Acquired Fund Trust and the Board of Trustees of Acquiring Fund Trust are referred to herein collectively as the “Board”) an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization pursuant to which an Acquired Fund, a series of the Acquired Fund Trust, will transfer its assets and liabilities to its corresponding Acquiring Fund, each a series of Acquiring Fund Trust, in exchange for shares of its corresponding Acquiring Fund in a tax-free reorganization (each, a “Reorganization”). Each Acquiring Fund is, and will be immediately prior to the date of the closing, a shell series, without assets or liabilities. The Board, including all of the
Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Funds (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)), determined that, for each Acquired Fund and Reorganization, participation in the Reorganization is in the best interests of the Acquired Fund and that the interests of existing shareholders of the Acquired Fund will not be diluted as a result of the Reorganization. Each Reorganization is expected to become effective on or about December 12, 2025 (the “Closing Date”).
Each Acquiring Fund will have an identical investment objective and identical fundamental investment policies as its corresponding Acquired Fund, as well as substantially similar investment strategies. Baron FinTech Fund and Baron Financials ETF are diversified, while Baron Technology Fund and Baron Technology ETF are non-diversified. BAMCO, Inc. (“BAMCO” or the “Adviser”), the Acquired Funds’ current investment adviser, will serve as the investment adviser of the Acquiring Funds. The portfolio management team of each Acquiring Fund is the same as that of its corresponding Acquired Fund.
The Board believes each Reorganization will permit shareholders of the Acquired Portfolio to pursue the same investment objective in an ETF structure, which provides multiple benefits for shareholders, including lower costs, the potential for increased tax efficiency, intraday trading and full daily holdings transparency.
Each Reorganization is structured to be a tax-free reorganization under the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. As a result, Acquired Fund shareholders generally will not recognize a taxable gain (or loss) for U.S. tax purposes as a result of the Reorganizations (although cash received as part of a Reorganization may be taxable, as noted below).
In connection with the Reorganizations, shareholders of the Acquired Funds will generally receive ETF shares of the Acquiring Funds equal in aggregate net asset value to the number of shares of the Acquired Funds they own. For the avoidance of doubt, the Acquiring Funds shall not issue fractional shares, and cash shall be distributed to Acquired Fund Shareholders in connection with the Reorganizations in lieu of fractional Acquiring Fund shares.
Shareholders who do not want or cannot hold Acquiring Fund shares may redeem out of the Acquired Funds or exchange their Acquired Fund shares for shares of another fund. A redemption or exchange of shares would generally be a taxable event for shareholders holding shares in taxable accounts.
2
If you hold your Acquired Fund shares in an account with a financial intermediary that is not able to hold shares of an ETF such as the Acquiring Funds, like many individual retirement accounts or group retirement plans, as of the Closing date, you will not receive Acquiring Fund shares as part of the conversion. Instead, your Acquired Fund shares will be liquidated, and you may receive cash equal in value to the net asset value of your Acquired Fund shares.
Completion of the Reorganizations is subject to making various filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissions (the “SEC”) and a number of conditions under the Plans. The Reorganizations do not require shareholder approval. Acquired Fund shareholders will receive an information statement/prospectus describing in detail both the Reorganizations and the Acquiring Funds, and a summary of the Board’s considerations in approving the Reorganizations.
In anticipation of the Reorganizations:
•on or about October 31, 2025, all Rule 12b-1 fees on Retail Shares of the Acquired Funds will be waived;
•on or about October 31, 2025, all issued and outstanding shares of the Acquired Funds will be closed to new shareholders and subsequent purchases through the time of the Reorganizations.
These dates may be subject to change.
An Information Statement/Prospectus with respect to the Reorganizations is expected to be mailed to Acquired Fund shareholders in October 2025. The Information Statement/Prospectus will describe the Acquiring Funds and other matters. Investors may obtain a free copy of the Prospectus of the Acquiring Funds once the registration statement of the Acquiring Funds becomes effective or by calling (800) 823-6300.
Please retain this supplement for future reference...

Since the beginning of the year, every financial pro out there keeps talking about weak dollar prospects and the need to reallocate abroad, yet the stock market keeps going up.
This sounds like a bubble diagnosis, which reminded me of February commentary from Eric Cinnamond of PVCMX titled Bubbleitis. If his prior ailment history is something to go by, we have till ~ November '26 for this one to pop.

Gets into other cognitive / investment related issues facing elders as well and to what extent a financial institution is responsible for monitoring accounts. Gifted link to Bloomberg

Thanks—I've enjoyed reading this article!
The so-called 4% rule is a good starting point for determining withdrawal rates
but it is not written in stone and may not be applicable in many situations.
Supposedly, financial advisors often have to encourage their clients to spend more.
Worrying about withdrawal rates is a waste of time for these people.
However, contemplating withdrawal rates is not an "academic exercise" or "distraction"
for many people with less financial security.
I broadly agree with the author's stated beliefs:
Instead of spending hours tweaking your safe withdrawal spreadsheet,
you should spend that time figuring out what matters to you.
What experiences light you up?
What do you want to say yes to before your time is up?
Where are you holding back out of habit, fear, or spreadsheet-based anxiety?
Then spend.
Pivot when needed.
Adjust along the way.
Because your retirement spending isn’t a fixed equation—it’s a living, breathing process.
It should evolve with your life, your priorities, and yes, even the market.
BTW, the benchmark withdrawal rate was raised in Bill Bengen's new book. ;-)
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/64438/safe-withdrawal-rates-bengen#latest

Interesting take on the SWR and why it probably doesn't matter if you know what it is.

The people most concerned about outliving their money tend to be the least likely to actually do so. They stack conservative assumption upon conservative assumption—projecting higher-than-expected inflation, worst-case market returns, maximum sequence-of-return risk—and then underspend out of fear. They end up dying with too much money and too many unfulfilled dreams.
Yes, the 4% rule might give us a loose framework. Yes, financial models have value. But they were never meant to become shackles.
The truth is, you can’t predict the future. Black swan events, long-term care needs, unexpected medical expenses—these things happen. But the bigger danger for this audience isn’t overspending.
It’s under-living.

Link to Article:
why-youre-wasting-time-worrying-about?
also,
A discussion from Reddit regarding SWR and how it is just a rough calculation and not a fine tuned retirement spending strategy:
DIYRetirement/comments/safe_withdrawal_rates_and_variable_cash_flows

Some links:
Fidelity Select Defense & Aerospace FSDAX appears to be the big dog in the OEF world, up 37.7% YTD but with only 6.3% in non-US equity.
ITA - iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF up 35.2% YTD
PPA - Invesco Aerospace & Defense ETF up 27.5% YTD
And one more:
Top 10 Aerospace and Defense Companies in Europe in 2021 by Revenue

Following are excerpts from a current report in The Guardian:
Judge previously blocked president from laying off 1,500 employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

A federal appeals court set the stage for the Trump administration to resume firings at the top US consumer watchdog, ruling in a split decision that a lower court lacked jurisdiction in temporarily blocking the mass layoffs.
The ruling will not take immediate effect, the court said on Friday, to allow lawyers representing workers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and consumer groups to file for a review of the case by the full circuit court of appeals for the District of Columbia.
The ruling is the latest twist in the legal battle over the fate of the CFPB, as the Trump administration has tried to fire 1,500 of the agency’s 1,700 employees. The agency has returned more than $21bn to US consumers since its founding.
Russell Vought, director of the office of management and budget and the architect of Project 2025, the rightwing blueprint drawn up ahead of Trump’s re-election, was appointed acting director of the CFPB in February. The Trump administration has yet to nominate a permanent candidate for the director role since withdrawing its previous nominee in May.
US circuit judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees, ruled in favor of the administration on Friday. The district court behind the initial decision “lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims predicated on loss of employment”, the majority wrote.
In a dissent, circuit judge Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed by Barack Obama, said the lower court had acted properly in blocking the Trump administration from eradicating the CFPB entirely as the lawsuit played out. Pillard wrote: “It is emphatically not within the discretion of the President or his appointees to decide that the country would benefit most if there were no Bureau at all.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren, ranking member of the Senate banking, housing, and urban affairs committee who played a significant role in the creation of the CFPB, said: “Today’s divided panel decision willfully ignores the Trump administration’s unprecedented and lawless attempt to destroy an agency created by Congress that has helped millions of families across the country.”

M* (Jeffrey Ptak) published key findings from their annual 'Mind the Gap' study.
The average annual dollar-weighted return for mutual funds/ETFs was estimated
to be 7.0% for the 10-year period ending Dec. 31, 2024.
The aggregate annual total return during this period was 8.2%—a "gap" of 1.2%
or 14.6% of the aggregate total return.
"There can be debate about what causes investor return gaps—some chalk it up to behavior,
but it appears to reflect a number of factors, including the context in which investors utilize funds.
Whatever the cause, it seems to be a rather persistent cost, not unlike fund expense ratios."
"Investors have had more success capturing the total returns of all-in-one funds, like target-date funds.
Conversely, they’ve struggled with specialized funds like sector equity funds that are likelier to be used
in a stand-alone or nonstrategic way."
"While there can be merit to active funds that go their own way, one potential trade-off investors face
is the degree to which they can capture the funds’ total returns.
These higher-tracking-error funds’ more idiosyncratic approaches can test resolve,
leading to mistimed purchases and sales, which could explain their wider investor return gaps."
"The more investors traded, the less their average dollar made
when compared with the funds’ aggregate total returns."
"More-volatile funds appear likelier to push investors’ buttons,
potentially leading to mistimed purchases and sales that dent dollar-weighted returns."
https://www.morningstar.com/financial-advisors/volatility-bedevils-fund-investors

From Markets A.M. newsletter by Spencer Jakab.
On this day in 1920, Charles Ponzi was arrested for financial fraud in Boston
after taking in more than $6 million from thousands of investors he was repaying
with other investors' money. Such pyramid arrangements were forever afterward
known as “Ponzi schemes.”

One has to be comfortable with a large amount of hi-yield fare in RPHIX. I ended up with CBUDX instead. Information on the composition of the funds is near the bottom of the links. Two funds near their range of M* standard deviation would be JPST and FLOT.
This is what makes AAA CLOs so interesting. We've seen that no matter how an investment is structured (AAAs being first in line from a whole pool of debt) nothing will protect you if the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. That's what happened with CDOs in 2008.

What’s especially notable is that slight differences between CLOs and CDOs have given CLOs more resistance to economic downturns. In fact, a [White & Case] report notes that CLOs were minimally affected by the same troubles as CDOs during the Great Recession. A shift toward CLOs and away from CDOs could benefit traders, investors and lenders without forming a bubble that would inevitably burst.

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/10353-cdo-financial-derivatives-economic-crisis.html
I'm not ready to pull the trigger on AAA CLOs just yet. Let's see what happens over the next few months. Even then, I'd look at just the best of the best - the most "pure" AAA CLO fund. That seems to be PAAA. Though JAAA serves as a good reference for how AAA CLOs have behaved over a few years. And JBBB serves as a good comparison for seeing how the quality of the tranche (AAA vs BBB) matters.
An ETF I haven't seen mentioned that's somewhat in FLOT's space is VRIG. FLOT and FLRN hold about 2/3 of their assets in corporate bonds (the rest in gov bonds) and track each other closely. VRIG takes a different path, splitting its non-gov bonds evenly between corporate and securitized. This seems to result in slightly more risk but with commensurate rewards.
VRIG has a longer (but still miniscule) effective duration (0.23 years vs. 0.01 years); lower credit quality (A+ vs. AA-), worse 3 year std dev (0.99 vs 0.57) resulting in a lower Sharpe ratio (1.34 vs 1.81). On the plus side, VRIG comes with better long term performance.
It also seems to do better with short term jolts:
Feb-March 2020: both dropped around 13% (daily data);
March 2023: both dropped around 1½% through March 13 but FLOT continued dropping another ¾% over the next few days;
April 2025: VRIG dropped ¾% while FLOT dropped twice that.
Some have used the word "gamble". I'm still looking for how best to spread my bets.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nvidia-and-amd-reportedly-will-give-u-s-government-15-of-its-china-chip-revenues-a31ade78?mod=home_lead

Nvidia Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. will give 15% of their chip revenue from sales in China to the U.S. government as a condition of receiving new export licenses, according to a report Sunday.
The Financial Times reported that Nvidia Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. obtained U.S. export licenses for the Chinese market last week for its H20 and MI308 artificial-intelligence chips, respectively, on the condition of an unprecedented revenue-sharing agreement.
The FT said no U.S. company has ever agreed to split revenue with the government as a condition of obtaining an export license.

@fred495
Congrats & thanks for sharing. Have you tried dissecting the fund’s holdings / positioning to determine where the outsized gains have come from? Things like opportunistic short positions, high yield bonds, exposure to gold … big tech or non-dollar denominated stuff? I know that kind of analysis takes a lot of time and perseverance. M* doesn’t seem to list QDSNX’s top investments in any specificity.
What I can glean from M* the top sector “exposure” is 17% in technology, followed by 16% in financial.
These numbers from M* (Classic View) appear a bit off-the-wall. I have owned L/S funds before, but can’t recall numbers as high as these.
Long equity 135% / Short Equity 127%
Long fixed income 291% / Short fixed income 278%
Short cash 174% / Long cash 204%
In defense of those large numbers, it does appear the bond duration is largely on the short end with approximately 50% under 1 year out. Bond quality looks good with about 70-80% investment grade.

“Since the early 2000s, pension funds have increasingly added private assets to their investments.”
“Private assets didn’t measurably improve pensions’ returns, says JP Aubry, associate director
of research at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, who conducted a study on them.
Before the financial crisis of 2008-09, they outperformed broad market, passive strategies slightly,
while they underperformed after.”
“Private assets might have a certain cachet, but public markets work just fine,
says Jason Kephart, senior principal, multi-asset manager research at Morningstar.
'People who have invested in public markets over the last 15 years have done well.'”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/bitcoin-private-equity-and-other-alt-investments-are-coming-for-your-401-k-what-could-go-wrong/ar-AA1K77IJ

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1644419/000158064225004978/anchorglobalstrat497.htm
497 1 anchorglobalstrat497.htm 497
Anchor Risk Managed Global Strategies Fund
Advisor Class Shares – ATAGX
Institutional Class Shares – ATGSX
(a series of Northern Lights Fund Trust IV)
Supplement dated August 8, 2025
to the Prospectuses and Statements of Additional Information dated December 30, 2024
______________________________________________________________________________
The Board of Trustees of Northern Lights Fund Trust IV (the “Board”) has determined based on the recommendation of the investment adviser of the Anchor Risk Managed Global Strategies Fund (the “Fund”), that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on August 28, 2025.
Effective at the close of business August 8, 2025, the Fund will not accept any purchases and will no longer pursue its stated investment objectives. The Fund may begin liquidating its portfolio and may invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders.
Prior to August 28, 2025, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO AUGUST 28, 2025 WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR DIRECTLY OR THE FUND AT 1-844-594-1226 (toll-free).
This Supplement and the existing Prospectuses dated December 30, 2024, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectuses and the Statements of Additional Information dated December 30, 2024, have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund at 1-844-594-1226

TBUX (TRP Ultra short bond ETF) is also doing well, with a 1-wk return of .23%. The 7-day SEC yield is 4.65%.

I'm pretty sure that's 30 day yield,

if I read it right.
But now we're drifting from money markets to ultra-shorts. Not that I mind the drift. I track twenty oef and etf ultra-shorts. I would look further back than one week returns, especially since we are around the time when many have paid their dividends.
OTOH, I suppose I should be more mindful of the tax consequences of the mmf's in my taxable account. But I don't think it would make that much difference to the tax bill.

You are correct - 30-day. I appreciate the correction and comments. And yes, a bit of drift.

Is there *anything* this clown won't touch? I also wonder if this will encourage countries to continue, if not expand, their withdrawl of bullion from the NYC vaults out of concerns over soverignty and what is rightfully their property.
(Bloomberg) -- A Trump administration ruling that gold bars will be subject to tariffs stunned traders who had assumed they would be exempted, throwing bullion markets into turmoil.
Futures in New York, which are backed by bars shipped from Switzerland and other key trading and refining hubs, surged to a record.
Traders, analysts and executives across the industry had understood the bars would be exempt from reciprocal tariffs enacted by President Donald Trump, such as a 39% levy on Swiss goods. But when a gold refiner in Switzerland asked about it, US Customs and Border Protection clarified that one-kilogram and 100-ounce gold bars are subject to the levies, according to a letter from the agency.
The decision, if it remains in place, has sweeping implications for the flow of bullion around the world, and potentially for the smooth functioning of the US futures contract. Gold’s role as a financial asset and global currency sets it apart from other commodities like copper that have been roiled by tariffs, and traders said on Friday that shipments had largely frozen up in response to the shock news.
“In the long run, the existence of US tariffs on deliverable gold products raises the question on the role of futures trading in the US,” said Joni Teves, a strategist at UBS AG. “Until there is clarity, we expect the gold market and precious metals markets more generally to remain very nervous.”

< - >
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-adds-surprise-gold-bar-045737320.html

Here is a 14 month no-penalty CD from Sallie Mae Bank with 4.20% APY offered through Raisin. (No penalty after 30 days.)
I've never had an account with Raisin myself, but have heard some positive things about the platform.

Agreed, especially with Sallie Mae offerings. I've also looked at them from time to time.
Perhaps worth noting is that Raisin itself is a fintech company, and the FDIC insurance is pass through ("inherited" from Sallie Mae or whomever). Like Fidelity that also sells CDs, it is not a US chartered bank and is not a "member FDIC".
Deposits are sent to a custodial bank (Lewis & Clark or Starion Bank) that is FDIC-insured. The custodial bank in turn aggregates deposits for a given partner bank (such as Sallie Mae) and puts the total into an omnibus account at the partner bank. Generally the custodian bank is responsible for keeping track of how much each depositor owns in that omnibus account.
This usually all happens smoothly, invisibly. But on one occasion (where the intermediary was Synapse), the bookkeeping (not the banks) failed. IMHO this not a risk worth worrying about. OTOH if one can do about as well without going through a fintech, then why take the chance? On the third hand, Raisin offers a measure of convenience similar to using a brokerage rather than going directly to a bank.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/62442/fintech-apps-yotta-funds-missing
One other curiosity. All of Raisin's no-penalty CDs have a 30 day lock up. 7 days is typical in the industry. See, e.g. Ally (withdraw after 6 days), CITbank (beginning 7 days after funds have been received), etc.

TBUX (TRP Ultra short bond ETF) is also doing well, with a 1-wk return of .23%. The 7-day SEC yield is 4.65%.

I'm pretty sure that's 30 day yield, if I read it right.
But now we're drifting from money markets to ultra-shorts. Not that I mind the drift. I track twenty oef and etf ultra-shorts. I would look further back than one week returns, especially since we are around the time when many have paid their dividends.
OTOH, I suppose I should be more mindful of the tax consequences of the mmf's in my taxable account. But I don't think it would make that much difference to the tax bill.

@mskursh,
What is FPU?

Sorry! Financial Peace University by Dave Ramsey.

And if you want something liquid and FDIC insured, Marcus is offering 7 and 13 month no penalty CDs with APY of 4.15%.
I would go with the longer term. If rates go up one can cash out and reinvest at a higher rate. Or if the Fed pushes rates down because of a softening economy, one has a rate lock for over a year.

Marcus offer looks good, but then I’d be Goldman man and have to get my Grey Poupon!

Marcus has had the worst customer support of any bank or brokerage I've ever dealt with (at least a couple of dozen). In my experience, they've been so cartoonishly awful that I can probably write a short book trying to describe all my travails with them.
The book would probably start with this classic: they've once held up a transaction for over two weeks because "their fax machine was broken" and they refused to accept a document by any other means (overnight/regular mail or email).
First, in the typically officious manner, they said that my fax must not have gone out and that I needed to re-fax. When I'd emailed them 3 different successful fax-out reports from 3 different sources - email was apparently acceptable for that - they told me that it must be someone in the office systematically misplacing faxes (a nefarious saboteur in their midst planted, no doubt, by Messrs. Merrill and Morgan!) and that they would search for them.
After days pass w/o any follow-up, I call them to find that no faxes have been discovered. Fax it over again - nothing. At this point, I politely ask whether they've gotten any faxes from anyone during this time. The rep is incredulous but, after I push, puts me on hold then comes back and more sheepishly tells me that it does not look like they have. (Mind you, fax is the only way they get documents in, at least in that department.) So, he promises to check if the machine is broken. When I call back the next day, they confirm that it is and would be fixed asap, of which they would let me know at once.
Hooray, Marcus is finally getting ready to get down to actual business! (After all, we are by then over a week into the process.) Not so fast, Goldman Sachs is a respectable financial institution and everyone needs to follow proper protocols - even the fax machine! (I did not think of it at the time, but perhaps the latter got too much Grey Poupon?? Not sure...) Anyway, several days go by when I do not hear from them. When I finally run out of patience and call thinking that the fax machine is surely fixed by now and they have just forgotten to let me know, I discover that no, their fax is still offline because this needs to be rectified "properly" as it is a "question of security" (i.e., the fact that we are closing in on two weeks in just getting started on my transaction is all for my benefit).
Finally, I began losing it a bit and went up the chain. I ended up with a senior supervisor who intimated that they are still trying to figure out whose budget, account, or grandmother is supposed to pay for the case-appropriate fax machine replacement / repair. I, only half-joking, offered to send them a new one. Alas, the rep very courteously pointed out that this would be futile as they indeed could not receive any physical mail at that office - not to mention the field day those aforementioned saboteurs would have violating security policies and bringing the good name of Marcus and Goldman Sachs to disrepute...
The story ended mere 2+ weeks thence it began when the fax demon was at last successfully subdued, probably by the spirit of Mr. Marcus himself, bringing to a close one of several wonderous tales I can relate about this remarkable institution.
Too bad, I no longer have any accounts with them to collect more.