https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1611894/000114036116087676/form497.htm
497 1 form497.htm CORSAIR OPPORTUNITY FUND 497 11-22-2016
Corsair Opportunity Fund
(THE “FUND”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 23, 2016 TO THE FUND’S
PROSPECTUS AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
DATED JANUARY 27, 2016
On November 22, 2016, the Board of Trustees (the "Board") of the Fund approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination (the "Plan"), whereby the assets of the Fund would be liquidated and the Fund subsequently dissolved.
In light of the Board's decision, shares of the Fund are no longer being offered.
As a result of the Fund's liquidation, each shareholder of the Fund as of the close of business on December 15, 2016 will be entitled to receive a distribution in an amount equal to the net asset value of his/her shares as of December 15, 2016, to be received prior to December 22, 2016. The liquidation distribution amount will include any accrued income and capital gains, will be treated as a payment in exchange for shares and will generally be a taxable event. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning you particular tax situation. A notice concerning the Plan and the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund will be mailed to shareholders.

Here's the actual GAO report.
While some of what it says may be sound and even useful, there are enough things that pop out to suggest one not read a news report without looking at the GAO report itself.
The report starts: "GAO’s nongeneralizable survey ..." Much later it amplifies: "The participants’ responses and our analysis of their accuracy are not generalizable.."
"Our web-based survey was an opt-in panel [self-selecting participants] and open to anyone who received a link to the survey ... [including] plan sponsors and other plan professionals who assist plan sponsors ... On the basis of our application of recognized survey design practices and follow-up procedures, we determined that the data were of sufficient quality for our purposes."
While the report says that people average 11 jobs over the thirty year period between ages 18 and 48, it notes that these jobs may be held simultaneously. Also, half of these (5+) are held before age 25 (Table 4). Where and how is that accounted for when looking at the savings lost by starting jobs that require a one year waiting period before contributing to a 401(k)?
On the one hand, the waiting period for all these early jobs may be more costly than the same waiting period at the later jobs. That's because the early job money that would have been contributed but for the waiting period would have grown for more years than later job contributions. On the other hand, early career wages are lower, so fewer 401(k) dollars may be lost by having to wait. Perhaps even no retirement dollars at all are lost. This is because at starting wage income levels, people might be able to put all these dollars into IRAs without maxing out.
It doesn't seem that the report is this sophisticated. It seems to use hypotheticals that it considers average, but I've taken just such a quick cursory look that all I've got are questions.
The report may hang together. The GAO did use some actual labor statistics. But it seems hard to tell from a very quick first glance. As an employee, I want to get everything I can from my employer - immediate participation, immediate vesting, large match. As an employer, I want to be able to retain employees, especially in the more mobile 21st century. The best way to do that is still to provide a work environment where people want to stay.

FYI: The Scout Mid Cap fund has returned an annualized 10% over 10 years, beating 99% of its peers.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.barrons.com/articles/todays-top-5-stock-picks-durable-growth-1479905281?mod=BOL_hp_highlight_1
M* Snapshot UMBMX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/UMBMX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot UMBMX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/UMBMX
UMBMX Is Ranked #32 In The (MCB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/mid-cap-blend/scout-mid-cap-fund/umbmx

BAM is a marketing machine. I read Swedroe's books and have tracked his portfolios in those books as for anticipated outcomes. Maybe if you have 50 years you can reach the returns he projects. Much data mining and public relations fizz promoting DFA and claiming they add 3% benefits to you with their advice. Its part of the risk equation when you sign with an advisor for a particular set of funds DFA in this case. DFA uses the age old marketing ploy of exclusivity with its advisors. Madoff also used exclusivity, its marketing and advertising 101.

@claimui. Isn't ARTGX doing well because it has some US stocks? higher dollar is what is killing international stocks. One would expect ARTKX to underperform ARTGX.
Once again, stock picking prowess is not non-existent, but way overrated.
@expatsp You got me thinking. Need to take closer look this weekend at Artisan et.al. It is very difficult to distinguish between good managers and inception date of fund luck. I need to see consistent upside / downside captures. Instead of comparing 1,3,5 year returns, need to compare them against charts of other funds over exact periods.

Am wondering if the time is coming to get out of artkx. Had a great run, but nothing lasts forever, and if the parent company is losing its culture, could be time to take profits

ARTKX has been in the top 10% of its category almost every year. After a poor 2015 and a mediocre start to 2016, Morningstar now has it in the top 10% YTD, and in the top 5% for all other periods. ARTGX, run by the same managers, is also doing well.
Artisan may be going through some changes, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a worthy alternative to ARTKX.

Speaking of the pathetic state of journalism, you might think about (but largely avoid reading) the current U.S. News article, "This book obliterates active management." The book is another of Larry Swedroe's shots at active management; smart guy, he's probably 99% right.
My beef? The article is written by a member of Swedroe's staff: "[t]he book was written by my colleague Larry Swedroe." The author is "director of investor advocacy for the BAM ALLIANCE and a wealth advisor for Buckingham." Which is to say, he's a marketer. He "travels the country educating advisors and clients alike about changing their lives for the better." Swedroe, on the other hand, is one of the firm's principals, a board member and member of the executive team.
Why isn't this "article" presented as what it is: an ad for Swedroe's 13th book (what is it that he hadn't covered in the prior 12 that required an entire new book?) by a guy with a vested interest in it.
David

Could not agree more. A marketeer in a class of his own. I think he is up to 15 or 16 books now.

FYI: Retail names among the strongest of the day
U.S. stocks were little changed on Tuesday as major indexes pulled back from their latest in a string of all-time highs, on a day when both the Dow and S&P 500 topped psychological milestones.
Gains on the day were slight but broad, with only three of the S&P 500’s primary 11 sectors trading lower early. Consumer-discretionary names were among the biggest outperformers, lifted by retailers.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.45% rose 44 points, or 0.2%, to 19,002. The blue-chip index touched 19,014.73 early in the session, its first time above 19,000.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/yen-rises-nikkei-futures-erase-gain-after-quake-oil-holds-gain
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN13H19R
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-on-track-to-knock-out-fresh-record-highs-2016-11-22/print
USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/11/22/stocks-dow-tuesday/94268404/
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-turn-mixed-after-dow-crosses-19000-retailers-shine/
CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/22/if-the-dow-closes-above-19000-we-can-expect-more-gains-to-come.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
WSJ Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures: Positive
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

FYI: We found the star rating was moderately predictive of future returns.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=780965

These surveys are disappointing in a number of ways. First, they point out that there are still more than a few so-called "advisors" who stick to one or two fund families, no matter what. The survey confirms the inability or laziness of many commission brokers to think outside a small box. This is often encouraged by broker/dealers that have more attractive commission payouts for fund companies who pay the BDs to get on their "A" list of funds. Shameful? Yes, but it happens a lot.
Second, it shows that lower-cost funds are starting to appear in the survey, but just barely. Considering all the news and emphasis on fiduciary responsibility, load funds still make up the majority of of the list.
Third, it shows that despite the commission industry's talk about how a fiduciary rule will keep them from providing service to smaller accounts, there is very little difference in investment advice from one client to the next among their salespeople. The order of the top 5-6 companies shown might change from year to year, but there is not much change in the names of that group.
Fourth, and very promising, is the actual showing of Price, Vanguard and DFA in the list. This means two things: A. the survey is actually being sent to and answered by a segment of the RIA community, and B. this segment of the advisory industry is growing, while the sales/commission side is losing market share every year.
I must confess, too, that all of the commission fund companies offer no-commission funds, funds at NAV, or institutional-class shares to the RIA industry. That has not always been the case, and that is also something for which I am thankful.

Abigail Johnson on Forbes Lists
#29 Forbes 400 (2016)
#31 in 2015
#16 Power Women (2016)
The Richest Person In Every State (2016)
#65 Billionaires (2016)
#29 in United States
2016 Forbes 400 Net Worth
$13.2 Billion
President-CEO, Fidelity Investments
Age 54
Source Of Wealth money management
Self-Made Score 3
Residence Milton, MA
Citizenship United States
Marital Status Married
Children 2
Education Bachelor of Arts / Science, Hobart and William Smith; Master of Business Administration, Harvard Business School

http://www.forbes.com/profile/abigail-johnson/?list=forbes-400
#76 Charles Schwab
http://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-schwab/?list=forbes-400
#156 Donald Trump
http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/?list=forbes-400

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890540/000113542816001868/frost-497.txt
497
1
frost-497.txt
THE ADVISORS' INNER CIRCLE FUND II (THE "TRUST")
FROST KEMPNER TREASURY AND INCOME FUND (THE "FUND")
SUPPLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2016
TO THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASS SHARES PROSPECTUS AND THE INVESTOR CLASS SHARES
PROSPECTUS, EACH DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2015 (THE "PROSPECTUSES") AND THE STATEMENT
OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2015 (THE "SAI")
THIS SUPPLEMENT PROVIDES NEW AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND THAT CONTAINED
IN THE PROSPECTUSES AND SAI, AND SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
PROSPECTUSES AND SAI.
The Board of Trustees of the Trust, at the recommendation of Frost Investment
Advisors, LLC (the "Adviser"), the investment adviser of the Fund, has approved
a plan of liquidation providing for the liquidation of the Fund's assets and the
distribution of the net proceeds PRO RATA to the Fund's shareholders. In
connection therewith, the Fund will be closed to new investments effective
immediately. The Fund is expected to cease operations and liquidate on or about
December 30, 2016 (the "Liquidation Date").
Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem (sell) their shares in
the manner described in the "How to Redeem Fund Shares" section of the
Prospectuses. For those Fund shareholders that do not redeem (sell) their shares
prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute to each such
shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash
distribution equal in value to the shareholder's interest in the net assets of
the Fund as of the Liquidation Date.
The liquidation distribution amount will include any accrued income and capital
gains, will be treated as a payment in exchange for shares and will generally be
a taxable event. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning your
particular tax situation. Shareholders remaining in the Fund on the Liquidation
Date will not be charged any transaction fees by the Fund. However, the net
asset value of the Fund on the Liquidation Date will reflect the costs of
liquidating the Fund.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
FIA-SK-039-0100

FYI: he trend towards fee-based practices is pushing low-priced fund groups to the top of the list of funds most popular with advisers. While consistency of fund performance and having a distinctive company investment philosophy remain critical, fees and expenses offer the greatest potential to enhance loyalty among users who are predominantly fee-based, says Market Strategies International. Here’s the list of the 10 companies most popular with financial advisers.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH
1. Franklin Templeton:
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH/10-most-popular-fund-companies-
2. Legg Mason:
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH/10-most-popular-fund-companies-with-financial-advisers&Params=Itemnr=10
3. BlackRock:
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH/10-most-popular-fund-companies-with-financial-advisers&Params=Itemnr=9
4. MFS:
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH/10-most-popular-fund-companies-with-financial-advisers&Params=Itemnr=8
5. J.P. Morgan:
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH/10-most-popular-fund-companies-with-financial-advisers&Params=Itemnr=7
6. American Funds:
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH/10-most-popular-fund-companies-with-financial-advisers&Params=Itemnr=6
7. DoubleLine:
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH/10-most-popular-fund-companies-with-financial-advisers&Params=Itemnr=5
8. T. Rowe Price:
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH/10-most-popular-fund-companies-with-financial-advisers&Params=Itemnr=4
9. Vanguard:
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH/10-most-popular-fund-companies-with-financial-advisers&Params=Itemnr=3
10. Dimensional Fund Advisors:
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20161121/FREE/112109999/PH/10-most-popular-fund-companies-with-financial-advisers&Params=Itemnr=2

Would that 2.5% be enough for the rest ?
Derf

No disability ends at full retirement age and the regular SS fund picks up the rest. Also, presently the SS fund is quite healthy but the disability fund is not so it is spending from the SS fund. (At least it was. I am assuming that it still is.)

@Crash said "And rising rates are hurting REIT funds. How long can we expect to wait before it all levels-off?"
Real Estate Review:Nov. 20, 2016 3:21 PM ET Hoya Capital Real Estate
REIT valuations in 2016 have been driven almost entirely by movements in US interest rates, but this pattern has diverged since the Trump election. REITs have held up surprisingly well in the face of sharply higher interest rates.

Residential REITs struggled this week amid stronger-than-expected construction data and comments from President Elect Trump on a possible deportation of 2-3 million people. While we don't expect mass deportations, we do expect a slowdown in net migration into the United States, which would be a drag on apartment and self storage demand. Public Storage (NYSE:PSA) and Apartment Investment Management (NYSE:AIV) fell 5% each.
The re-pricing continued this week, as investors in residential REITs had to weight the possibility of sharp declines in net migrations into the United States as a result of stricter immigration policies.
Rent inflation, though, remains strong, a signal of continued tightness in the multifamily rental market. Rent inflation rose 0.4% month over month and is up 3.5% year over year.
30-Year Mortgage rates, which tend to track movements in medium and long term Treasury bonds, surged higher this week and are at or above 4% for the first time since late 2015. All else equal, higher mortgage rates puts downward pressure on house prices and home sales, as it pushes marginal buyers out of the market. This may be a positive for apartment REITs. We won't know the effects on home prices, new home sales, or new construction for several weeks or months.
Labor markets have shown signs of continued strength. Initial jobless claims data was better than expected. Data this week showed the lowest jobless claims since 1973.
Retail sales showed continued strength in October. Retail sales excluding auto gained a strong 0.8% in October, following an upwardly revised 0.7% in September. Retail sales have risen in seven of the past nine months and are now up 4% year over year.
Digging deeper into the data, we see strength in grocery stores, clothing stores, miscellaneous retailers, and sporting goods stores. Online retail (non-store retailers) continues to show strength. Department stores continue to struggle, but their pace of decline has moderated.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4024976-real-estate-review-reits-stabilize-construction-strong-yields-mortgage-rates-surge
Also
Real Estate Implications Of Trump's Win
Nov. 17, 2016 3:55 PM ET|4 comments | About: iShares U.S. Real Estate Etf (IYR), Includes: AMZN, AVB, EQR, GGP, PAC, PLD, PSA, SPG, VNQ
Hoya Capital Real Estate Hoya Capital Real Estate
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4024392-reits-picked-winners-2016-real-estate-implications-trumps-win
Bond Rally and Rout to Nowhere
Posted on November 21, 2016 by David Ott Acropolis Investment Management,
...although 2016 feels like a year where anything can happen – bond returns are almost exactly what you would have expected back in January.
Despite all of the action, not much has really changed, which is why we try not to focus too much on the short-term movements.

http://acrinv.com/bond-rally-rout-nowhere/

Would that 2.5% be enough for the rest ?
Derf

Boy, if given the chance over 40 years ago to go with SS or use that money to fund my own retirement, I would have picked the latter in a heartbeat. Yea some don't know how to save or invest but don't include those who want to do better, which is a big chunk of society.
I have always liked the idea that out of the 12.5% tax for SS, let me invest 10%. The rest goes into a pool fund for those who are physically disabled or unable to work. We do have a compassionate streak among us.

@edmond Most members of the "green crowd" oppose free trade deals just like Trump ostensibly does: http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Green_Party_Free_Trade.htm
In fact it is the "Republican elite" that generally supports free trade and will seek to reign Trump in if he suggests severe tarrifs. It will be interesting to see if Trump follows through on his pandering to the working class because it will be bad for his businesses that sell foreign made goods and terrible for the stock market in general. Most multinational companies will crash the day any serious tarrifs pass.
https://greenparty.org/Platform.php
From the Green Party Platform:
"Fair Trade: Withdraw from the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and all other corporate-managed trade agreements that are driving down labor and environmental conditions globally. Establish an internationalist social tariff system that equalizes trade by accounting for the differences among countries in wages, social benefits, environmental conditions, and political rights. Tariff revenues to a democratic, international fund for ecological production and democratic development in poor countries in order to level up social and environmental conditions to a high common standard. "
Any here's what the Sierra Club, The NRDC, Greenpeace and other "green elite" organizations think of the TPP. They all oppose it: http://sierraclub.org/compass/2015/10/more-dozen-environmental-organizations-warn-trans-pacific-partnership-risks

Unfortunately, ARTWX has only $68 million AUM as of October 31, 2016 as the fund commenced on June 25, 2013. Hopefully, ARTJX will remain around for some time.
I am sure that GP's fund didn't help ARTWX either.

Hi Hank,
Not being too familiar with the hot money issue doesn't dissuade me from making a guesstimate of its likely impact on investor's returns. My arrogance is such that I'll invent a method to estimate its impact at least in a possible magnitude sense.
Expected long-term compound geometric annual rate of return is calculated by taking the expected average annual return and subtracting its volatility drag. Volititity drag is the square of standard deviation. As you know, many folks interpret standard deviation as a measure of risk.
In my model, hot money must increase standard deviation without substantially changing basic expected returns. If that is true, we can use the relationship of Expected Annual Return equals Average Annual Return minus one-half Variance to examine the potential impact of hot money on Expected Annual Returns.
Here is an example (be free to use your own set of test numbers). If you anticipate your portfolio will deliver a 7% average annual return with a standard deviation of 15%, the normal expected annual return is 5.88%. Using the proposed hot money model, the average annual return remains at the 7% level, but standard deviation might increase by say 30% to a 19.5% level. In that case, expected annual return is reduced to 5.10%.
So the proposed hot money impact on market volatility significantly attenuates expected returns. Toss in your own numbers and do a few cases to explore the sensitivities of the relationship.
Note that as average annual returns decrease, the impact of hot money has a larger influence. If average annual return is likely to be in the 4% range with still a 15% standard deviation, the nominal expected return is 2.88% and the hot money expected return is 2.10%. Hot money does proportionately more damage as market rewards decrease.
I'm sure this simplistic analysis misses some pertinent considerations, but it might get an investor into the ballpark in terms of weighing the influence of hot money on potential returns.
Hank, I think I'll stop at this juncture; otherwise I fear some folks will start talking.
Best Wishes.