https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/825063/000082506319000015/msp30719.htm
MS P3 07/19
SUPPLEMENT DATED JULY 18, 2019
TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED MAY 1, 2019
OF
FRANKLIN MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL FUND
(a series of Franklin Mutual Series Funds)
The Board of Trustees of Franklin Mutual Series Funds recently approved a proposal to reorganize the Franklin Mutual International Fund (the “Fund”) with and into the Franklin Mutual Global Discovery Fund, each a series of Franklin Mutual Series Funds.
It is anticipated that in the third quarter of 2019, shareholders of the Fund will receive a proxy card and a Prospectus/Proxy Statement requesting their votes on the reorganization. If approved by the Fund’s shareholders, the transaction is currently expected to be completed on or about February 21, 2020, but may be delayed if unforeseen circumstances arise.
Effective at the close of market (1:00 p.m. Pacific time or close of the New York Stock Exchange, whichever is earlier) on August 27, 2019, the Fund will be closed to all new investors except as noted below. Existing investors who had an open and funded account on August 27, 2019 can continue to invest in the Fund through exchanges and additional purchases after such date. The following categories of investors may continue to open new accounts in the Fund after the close of market on August 27, 2019: (1) clients of discretionary investment allocation programs where such programs had investments in the Fund prior to the close of market on August 27, 2019; and (2) Employer Sponsored Retirement Plans or benefit plans and their participants where the Fund was available to participants prior to the close of market on August 27, 2019. The Fund will not accept any additional purchases or exchanges after the close of market on or about February 19, 2020. The Fund reserves the right to change this policy at any time.
Please keep this supplement with your prospectus for future reference.

FYI: You’d think in the world of environmental, social and governance (ESG) index investing, the giant of social media—Facebook—would be a natural fit. But that’s not the case.
The $550 billion social media giant doesn’t impact the “environment” in any way near the way a fossil fuel company like Chevron does. Facebook is similar to other tech giants like Microsoft, Apple and Google. There are no belching smoke stacks in the tech world. These companies, which include Facebook, typically rank well when it comes to their environmental-friendly footprint.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.etf.com/sections/blog/facebook-faces-esg-index-music?nopaging=1

I can't read this article because it's behind a paywall but somebody might be interested I hope. I did read it at Fidelity through my accounts there.
The stock rather than their bonds

.. Has not change much
Still holding eem
No bonds
25s% eem distribution in 401k

Right... Yes sir @_MJG
went up >15s% since the last market semi-correction/small soft landing 'crash' after new yr

@MFO Members: The "Quality and Quantity" had over 650 views since this morning . How many for OJ today, 0000000000000000000000000000000000 !!!
Regards,
Ted

@MFO Members: Glad to see that Carl is on the same page as the Linkster! Got my semi-annual interest payment on HTZ 7.375% 1/15/21 Monday.
Regards,
Ted

To get a higher yield or simply higher total return. I don't there is much point in purchasing a fund with 10 year duration that yield under 3.5%

”Other than IOFIX, my positions and opinions can change quickly based on market action. I may sell two of my holdings today. I guess that is why I get so many warning and ban notices from some fund companies because of my trading activities.”

Love it! Thanks for sharing @Junkster.
You remind us that bond investing can resemble anything from driving a Studebaker ...


To driving a Ferrari!

All depends.

".... If anyone missed the first half rally in bonds I would be concerned about suddenly chasing performance now."
That makes perfect sense.
@MikeW my global bond fund is PRSNX , yes, it's with TRP. Up +7.05% ytd. Can't complain. But that puts it into the middle of the pack, at 45th percentile. Morningstar claims to have improved their website. That's hogwash. Four mouse-clicks now to get what I used to find with just one. Anyhow, my numbers here are from Morningstar. And Morningstar has lately changed the category where PRSNX belongs. Now, they've lumped it with World Bonds, but "US dollar hedged." Last month's dividend was down quite a bit...
My other bond fund is PTIAX. I'm quite happy there, too. Ytd, up +5.47%. June's monthly dividend jumped to 9 cents/share. PRSNX is 49.77% of my total. PTIAX is growing a tiny bit every month, with small automatic deposits, and I'm still reinvesting everything. Today, it represents 4.72% of my portfolio--- if you include my wife's 403b---still not quite $10,000.00 in there, yet.

Hey guys,
This is another somewhat strange question. But is there a resource that shows total fund into equity funds by year? Also, what about by category or asset class?
Here's what I'm trying to look at. What do the total fund equity flows (either positive or negative) look like year by year? I'd like to see the past few years fund flows vs let's say the late 90s or 2005-2007 and compare them to today.
For the other one, I'd like to see a ratio of money going into growth vs value funds (it would be interesting to compare the late 90s vs today) and also international vs domestic funds.
I've seen charts before but not sure how to get one that's up to date. Thanks!

Interesting short read. I turn 70 in a few months. Based on my current health status and the life spans of my parents and grandparents, I currently have my investment time horizon set at 21 years. I would be 90 years old at that point. Its been set at 90 since 2014 when I added an annual review of my planning horizon to my annual year-end portfolio review process. So, the chart makes sense to me.

Your investment time horizon seems reasonable. I say that because most everyone seems to overestimate how long they will live and think they will all live to 100. Longevity tables show those around our age ( I am 72) should live to 84/85. My high school and college classmates are dying off at an alarming rate. I am not sure in the U.S. lifespans are still expanding since obesity and being overweight has become so rampant over the past many years. Anyway, I never think about how many years I have left. Just try to live each day as if it is my last and spend some time each day on the trails, preferably in the middle of nowhere.

FYI: Investors are puzzling over the apparent paradox presented by the combination of stocks trading at or near all-time highs and a Federal Reserve that appears ready to deliver an imminent rate cut.
A look back at history shows that the Fed has been willing to cut rates with stocks at or near all-time highs in the past, but it’s a phenomenon that hasn’t been seen in more than 20 years. Market analyst Charlie Bilello last week noted on Twitter that since the Fed started targeting the fed-funds rate in 1982, it has delivered rate cuts with the S&P 500 SPX, -0.12% at an all-time high seven times — the last such cut occurring in January 1996.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/rate-cut-with-stock-market-at-all-time-highs-its-been-done-before-2019-07-15/print

FYI: Investment time horizon is a critical concept in building wealth. Most investors have very long investment time horizons, typically decades or more. Investment managers also require long time horizons to deliver on their investment thesis. Finally, stock market volatility diminishes substantially over time, with a 75% decrease in variability for 10 years versus one year. As a result, developing patience and a long-term perspective are key to building wealth. We are living longer and need to invest appropriately. Even at age 70, the investment time horizon is more than 20 years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/07/15/long-term-is-longer-than-you-think

It has been an amazing year for bonds. So much so that MAINX lags iin its category (emerging markets bond) and in the 75th percentile. One of the best in that category over the past three years has been Vanguard’s VEMBX and it is up over 14% YTD.

I wish something like a “10% Rule” was common knowledge when I started working in the 1970s. Nobody talked about saving for retirement then, and the stock market was considered a risky gamble. You could earn 12% interest from a money market account and my friends were more concerned about buying a car or house before prices went up again.
I didn’t start saving for retirement until my mid-30s when my employer started a 401k Plan. I contributed the amount that my employer would match, probably about 3% of my salary. I invested it all in cash and bonds because— again— stocks seemed like gambling. My employer provided no guidance or education about investment options, diversification, etc. Fortunately bonds did well during that period and even money markets paid 5-6%.
I finally got educated about investing when I left that job and rolled over my 401k and pension to an IRA. I was about 40 by then and immersed myself in financial literature. I invested the bulk of my savings in a diversified collection of stock funds, with a few bonds for safety, and never looked back. I increased my savings to about 10% of my salary including the employer match, and it all turned out OK in the end. For the last 20 years of my career, my employer had a pension but I kept contributing to a 401k, so my savings were closer to 15-20% of my salary— through my own ignorance because I didn’t realize that the pension was equivalent to saving about 10%.
Bottom line, for young workers or older ones who aren’t saving yet for retirement, the 10% Rule is a pretty good guideline for getting someone started in investing.

The article isn't too bad, as far as facts and figures. Perhaps it will cause a few readers who stumble across such a write to be more involved with their financial future.
So, before folks run to a "SIMULATOR" to determine the yet unknown they first must have a "STIMULATOR". Without a stimulator to help with motivation to save, there will be no need for the simulators.
So, let us count the ways. I've been pushing folks for 40 years to invest some of their wages; including the current campaign of setting up minor ROTH IRAs.
The "stimulator" has been in place with simple facts and figures.
The results have always been disappointing.
Boomers always seemed to want other stuff for "today's wants". Their children were not much different. In both of these groups, at least most were married and dual income households. But, the remaining free monies for investments (401k, 403b, simple IRA and then Roth IRA) were few.
The overwhelming response was the "markets" were too complex and they were not willing to use small pieces of their time to learn.
More recently, being since the market melt; finds remaining damage to household finances and problems finding jobs that pay a decent wage. This current period also contains those who do not trust market investments.
So, there are those households who have the monetary ability to invest; but still do not take any actions.
Ten percent of base pay seems are reasonable and easy path with which to begin; but I still don't see enough takers among educated and well paid 50 year old folk today.
Pretty sad and frustrating to and for me.
Good evening,
Catch

Don't buy, please don't buy. :)

LOL - Got that right Mike. It will drive you nuts. I’m just slightly overweight on my one mining fund. Benchmark allocation is only 2.5% to start with. I guess it’s about 3-4% of holdings currently. Part of that overweight is due to gold’s recent appreciation and part is intentional overweighting on my part.
Honesty compels me to add that I have long owned a modest slug of PRPFX (despised by many here). That fund allocates something like 25-30% to precious metals and (to a lesser extent) the miners.
FWIW

The rule given, to save 10% (including employer contributions) for retirement, is a bit simplistic, as even the writer acknowledges:

Of course, there will be times when you’re between jobs or you need your money for a pre-retirement-age emergency. In those cases, ...
Of course, everyone’s situation is and will be different, so 10% is a guideline, not a guarantee. (Furthermore, if you start later in life, 10% won’t be nearly enough.)

Still, one had better have a single number in mind. Otherwise, your employer is going to pick one for you when it automatically enrolls you in its 401(k). How do the tools you suggested help a 25 year old determine how much to set aside for retirement?
The column references an EBRI model that "estimates the risk of running out of money after retirement by taking into account many more factors than the usual online calculator: contributions, market changes, Social Security benefits and salary growth, as well as a range of health outcomes and longevity prospects."
It's a little ironic, criticizing the idea of identifying a target savings rate number as too simplistic, while praising a tool for its simplicity that essentially says: for this asset allocation and retirement spending rate, here's the magic dollar number you need to survive.
As I've said before, simulation tools (regardless of the underlying technology or simplicity) are better than a stick in the eye. By the same token, so is the suggested 10% savings rate guideline.

To me, the key takeaway is the futility of predicting interest rates. Last fall, it was considered gospel truth that the Fed would continue hiking interest rates through 2019 with some so-called gurus predicting rates as high as 5-6%. That scenario quickly unraveled over the winter.
Now the “experts” are predicting big cuts in interest rates. I’m not convinced, as that scenario could dissolve if inflation indicators start rising. Tariffs, low unemployment rates, and barriers to immigration could all contribute to inflation.