If tariff goes up on 15th Dec, market will drop-drop-drop. Act if you can?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1657267/000089418919008228/mhft_497e.htm
497 1 mhft_497e.htm SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Miller/Howard Drill Bit to Burner Tip® Fund
Class
Ticker Symbol
Class I
DBBEX
Adviser Share Class
DBBDX
(A series of Miller/Howard Funds Trust)
Supplement dated December 9, 2019 to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated February 28, 2019, as amended
Based upon a recommendation by MHI Funds, LLC (the “Adviser”), the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Miller/Howard Funds Trust (the “Trust”) has approved a plan of liquidation for the Miller/Howard Drill Bit to Burner Tip® Fund (the “Fund”) as a series of the Trust, pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated on or around December 31, 2019 (the “Liquidation” or the “Liquidation Date”). The Adviser has determined that the Fund has limited prospects for meaningful growth. As a result, the Adviser and the Board believe that the Liquidation of the Fund is in the best interests of shareholders.
In anticipation of the Liquidation, effective as of the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“close of business”) on December 10, 2019, the Fund will be closed to new investments. In addition, effective December 9, 2019, the Adviser may begin an orderly transition of the Fund’s portfolio securities to cash and cash equivalents and the Fund may cease investing its assets in accordance with its investment objective and policies.
Shareholders may voluntarily redeem shares of the Fund, as described in the Fund’s Prospectus, before the Liquidation Date. Shareholders remaining in the Fund just prior to the Liquidation Date may bear increased transaction fees in connection with the disposition of the Fund’s portfolio holdings. If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction by the close of business on December 31, 2019, your shares will be automatically redeemed on the Liquidation Date. Shareholders will receive a liquidating distribution in an amount equal to the net asset value of their Fund shares, less any required withholding. For shareholders that hold their shares in a taxable account, the redemption of Fund shares will generally be treated as any other redemption of shares (i.e., a sale that may result in a gain or loss for federal income tax purposes). Your net cash proceeds from the Fund, less any required withholding, will be sent to the address of record.
If you hold your shares in an individual retirement account (an “IRA”), you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest or “rollover” your proceeds into another IRA in order to maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund’s transfer agent at 1-845-684-5730 prior to December 31, 2019 of your intent to rollover your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your proceeds.
If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account, such as an IRA, the redemption proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation. You should consult with your tax advisor on the consequences of this redemption to you. Checks will be issued to all shareholders of record as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date.
Please contact the Fund at 1-845-684-5730 if you have any questions.
This supplement should be retained with your Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI for future reference.

It only makes sense to hold a muni in an IRA is when you expect its total yield (cap gain plus interest) to exceed the total return of a taxable bond. That's because coming out of the IRA, both are taxed the same way. So which ever one wins on gross income also wins on net (after tax) income.
Say your tax bracket is 1/3 (33%). Consider three investments:
- A muni bond paying 2%
- A treasury bond paying 3%
- A utility stock that doesn't appreciate but pays qualified divs of 2.35%
In a taxable account, they'd all yield 2% after tax:
- The muni's 2% is tax-free
- The treasury gets taxed at 1/3, leaving 2/3 x 3% = 2%
- The stock div gets taxed at 15%, leaving 85% x 2.35% = 2%
In an IRA, all money coming out is treated as ordinary income (taxed 1/3):
- The muni earnings, taxed at 1/3, are reduced to 2/3 x 2% = 1͕1;%
- The treasury earnings again taxed down to 2%
- The stock divs, no longer treated as qualified, are reduced to 2/3 x 2.35% = 1.57%.

Hi @johnN,
A couple of things ...
1) Thanks for stepping your posting activity up since Ted has been absent from the board the past couple of days. This gives readers something to keep coming back for to read.
2) And, please keep finding some gems like this post. Really informative.
Old_skeet

@dbryan2,
Here is a Forbes article link from 6/2018 concerning the fund:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lcarrel/2018/06/28/plumb-balanced-fund-is-beating-the-sp-500/#6d8f90857743

https://www.equities.com/news/large-cap-growth-style-4q19-best-and-worst
Large Cap Growth Style 4Q19: Best and Worst
Equities.com
The Large Cap Growth style ranks fifth out of the twelve fund styles as detailed in our 4Q19 Style Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report.

The idea that the president could make munis taxable is dubious at best. The executive branch (including the IRS) generally, and the president specifically, can change regulations and policies only to the extent that the changes remain consistent (do not contradict) existing laws.
The Internal Revenue Code, section 103 states succinctly that with three exceptions (in 103(b)), interest paid on state and local bonds must not be taxed.
Congress certainly has the power to pass legislation making some or all muni bonds taxable. It did this in creating Build America Bonds. Congress enacted Section 54AA of the IRC, which says that if not for Section 54AA, the bonds would be tax exempt under IRC 103, as described above. That is, BAB bonds are, by a specific law, not tax-exempt.
It would take an act of Congress to make muni bonds generally taxable. The president cannot do this by fiat.
From a strictly pragmatic perspective, Congress is barely able to pass appropriations bills before the government again runs out of money in a couple of weeks. And this is the legislative body you fear will proactively take away the tax-exempt status of muni bonds?
Even if, against all odds, Congress did come together and pass some such bill, what would it look like? Would it revoke the tax-exempt status of current muni bonds> Or would the possibility that such a change might be unconstitutional prod Congress into taxing only bonds issued in the future (as was done with advance refunding)?
If so, then what do you see as the risk to currently outstanding munis? ISTM that by preserving their tax exempt status but drying up the supply of future tax-exempt munis, Congress might make current munis even more valuable. A double win for current bond holders - tax exempt interest and capital appreciation. As an investor, I wouldn't mind getting stomped on by that elephant.
As a taxpayer, the prospect of having to pay 40% more to get infrastructure does not please me. But that's a different matter altogether.

I have just over 1 share of SIGIX in two different accounts at Vanguard. It has been this way for a number of years now.

As a follow-up in supporting @msf's post,
Here is an excerpt from the 8/31/19 prospectus for Seafarer:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834419015471/fp0044912_485bpos.htm
..."Small Account Balances / Mandatory Redemptions
If at any time your account balance falls below the applicable minimum initial investment amount for the share class and type of account described under “Investment Minimums” in this Prospectus due to redemptions, a letter may be sent advising you to add to your account to meet the applicable minimum account balance, to transfer your shares to another share class of the Fund for which you are eligible, or to redeem the remaining shares in your account. If action is not taken within 30 days of the notice, the Fund may require mandatory redemption of shares, or the Fund may elect to transfer the shares to another share class of the Fund for which you are eligible. The Fund may adopt other policies from time to time requiring mandatory redemption of shares in certain circumstances, such as to comply with new regulatory requirements.
Each Fund reserves the right to waive or change investment minimums, and delegates such authority to Seafarer. Employees of the Adviser and their family members are not subject to any initial or subsequent investment minimums. "
Brokerages are a little hard to say, but probably follow the prospectus when in doubt.

Hard to say, for multiple reasons.
The prospectus says that: "If at any time your account balance falls below the applicable minimum initial investment amount [$2500, or $1,000 for IRA] ... in this Prospectus due to redemptions, a letter may be sent advising you to add to your account to meet the applicable minimum account balance, ... or to redeem the remaining shares in your account. If action is not taken within 30 days of the notice, the Fund may require mandatory redemption of shares"
So the fund itself may require you to keep at least $2500 (or $1K), but this is at its discretion. I've owned two funds at Vanguard where I dropped below Admiral level thresholds. Vanguard forced a downgrade conversion to Investor class shares for one of the fund. The other fund Vanguard left alone. Discretion.
Then there is the fact (I assume from your post) that you're investing through Fidelity. Fidelity generally sets a $2500 min for fund investments (except for its own funds). Whether it requires one to keep $2500 in a fund is something I don't know. Regardless, whether it would enforce such a rule is up to Fidelity. Then there is the question of whether Fidelity would tell Seafarer if you dropped below its minimum requirement.
In any case, it seems that $2500 would be safe. The actual minimum, however, could be lower. That's what is hard to say.

@syzygy
I am still waiting for 2019 IOFIX numbers, if any. Have not seen any 2019 numbers yet.
They have only 2016, 2017 and 2018 on their website.
I called BRUFX on Friday; no numbers yet also.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ladder-select-bond-fund-receives-211500859.html
Ladder Select Bond Fund Receives ‘4 Stars’ From Morningstar Upon 3 Year Anniversary
Business WireDecember 5, 2019, 3:15 PM CST
The Ladder Select Bond Fund (Institutional Class: LSBIX) Receives '4 Stars' Overall from Morningstar®, out of 491 Funds, respectively, in the US Fund Short-Term Bond Category, based on 3-years of historical risk-adjusted returns as of 10/31/2019.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-perfectly-orchestrates-the-stock-markets-rise-whenever-momentum-wanes-2019-12-05
Price action, internal momentum and volume aren’t great, but that doesn’t matter when the president wields his baton

Alphacentric funds: http://alphacentricfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/AlphaCentric-Distributions-2017-11-21-EST.pdf
Generally all share classes of a fund have the same cap gains distributions, because all shares represent the same fractional interest in the fund's portfolio. Only the income divs tend to be different for each share class because the expenses are paid first out of div income.
Since IOFAX projects no cap gains distributions (as of Nov 21), you can figure that the IOFIX share class is likewise not planning a cap gains distribution.

Not all is dark: https://csmonitor.com/World/Progress-Watch/2019/0801/Comeback-story-A-new-chapter-for-indie-bookstores

Also, the examples provided didn't go back prior to 1986. (I find the reasoning for this--that some fixed income categories didn't exist prior to 1986--a bit dubious, but nevertheless.) I believe most of the rate increases after that period were gradual and modest ones allowing fixed income to catch up with its yield payments to compensate for losses. The real test would be a period of rapid rate and inflation increases like in the 1970s--what is known as a "rate shock." I doubt Wellesley income or many funds to be honest would hold up too well in such a period. Also, because rates are so low now, as has already been pointed out, a small increase actually can be more significant. Going say from a 0.25% rate to 0.50% is actually a doubling of rates. That is more uncharted territory. Also, income-oriented stocks that Wellesley owns might do particularly poorly in a rate shock environment because unlike bonds they essentially have an infinite duration as they never mature. Then again, they could do better if they have a growth component to compensate for rising rates. It's hard to predict how it would do. Yet here is some useful information: https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105544/0000893220-95-000089.txt
If you go to page 6, you can see how Wellesley performed in the 1970s. Other than 1973 and 1974, it held up pretty well. So there's that. I wonder how it would do in a rate shock today when we're starting from such low rates.

Try this link instead:
https://www.icmarc.org/x3333.html?RFID=W1582&usg=AOvVaw2I9Vd-WRuW_zIiwp1pxMzJ
A solid piece, pretty much textbook (longer duration = greater loss with rising rates, junk = less sensitive to rates).
A few curiosities:

• It is interesting to note that contrary to conventional wisdom, all fixed income sectors experienced positive returns during the four rate hikes.
  I thought conventional wisdom said that historically NAV losses were more than compensated for by high coupons. Vanguard certainly makes this point in writing that buying bond funds in rising rate environments can still be profitable. (Not checking for citation now.)
  The problem is that with interest rates at historical lows, the coupons will likely not fully mitigate capital losses. The Vantage Point article alludes to this as well: "it is possible that the next upturn in rates would not result in positive returns for fixed income sectors due to unique factors, which may not have been present in the last four rate hikes."
• It gives as its rationale for not studying rising rate periods earlier than 1986 that "many fixed income sectors did not exist prior to 1986." So presumably it excludes securitized assets prior to the 1999 period of rising rates for the same reason. Yet MBSs (a major portion of secutized assets) certainly did exist then. FMSFX dates to 12/31/1984 and VFIIX got its start 6/27/1980.
• It explains that in the fourth rising rate period it studied, intermediate term bonds (actually aggregate bond portfolios) outperformed short term bonds in part because "short-term rates [rose] much more than longer-term rates, as shown by the flattening of the yield curve ". These days, there's not much more flattening to be had. Just a ¾% difference between a 3 month T-bill and a 30 year T-bond. Short term rates could again rise faster than long term rates, but that would result in an inversion not a flattening.

.

Here's a June 2016 study I quickly fund this morning:
Rising Interest Rates: Impact on Fixed Income
Though this study seems to promote the author's brand funds (Vantage Point Funds) it also provides a good overview of how different Income Assets historically behavior during rising interest rate environments.
One of many charts in the attached article:
https://screencast.com/t/VoK0BcUrr

I tend to view fund inflows and outflows as a contrary indicator. You wouldn't believe how many active funds had large outflows in 2018 yet went on to record truly exceptional returns in 2019 - some of them more than doubling SPX, DOW and Nasdaq index funds year to date.
That's "dumb" money for you...

facebook groups and email lists and the like are way more up to date about town meetings, business closings, school schedules, sports, gossip, police logs, firings and resignations and hirings, and everything else --- a local paper cannot come close, not remotely ... as an ex-newspaperman I try and support local print pubs also, but I understand why they are dying, the triumph of free over anything that costs

@davidrmoran,
(1) Where’s the accountability?
(2) Who checks the accuracy of the information?
(3) Who ferrets out those sources bearing a personal grudge, conflict of interest, or posting surreptitiously on behalf of a well funded special interest group ?