https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494928/000139834417006972/fp0026057_497.htm
497 1 fp0026057_497.htm
RiverPark Funds Trust
RiverPark Structural Alpha Fund
Supplement Dated May 30, 2017 to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and the
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) Dated January 27, 2017
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus and SAI.
Liquidation of RiverPark Structural Alpha Fund
On May 26, 2017, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of RiverPark Funds Trust approved a Plan of Liquidation for the RiverPark Structural Alpha Fund (the “Fund”) pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated on or about June 30, 2017 (the “Liquidation Date”). In approving the liquidation, the Board determined that the liquidation of the Fund is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. To arrive at this decision, the Board considered factors that have adversely affected, and will continue to adversely affect, the ability of the Fund to conduct its business and operations in an economically viable manner, including factors such as low asset levels and limited future prospects for growth.
Accordingly, the Adviser may begin positioning the portfolio of the Fund for liquidation, which may cause the Fund to deviate from its stated investment objective and strategies. It is anticipated that the Fund's portfolio will be positioned into cash on or some time prior to the Liquidation Date. Effective immediately, the Fund is closed to new shareholders and additional purchases by existing shareholders.
Any shares outstanding at the close of business on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed. Such redemption shall follow the procedures set forth in the Fund's Plan of Liquidation. Final dividends will be paid in advance of the Liquidation Date. Any capital gains will be distributed to shareholders, if necessary, prior to the Liquidation Date.
Any time prior to the Liquidation Date, the shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares of the Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Fund's Prospectus. Shareholders may also exchange their shares of the Fund into shares of the same class of another RiverPark fund if the shareholder meets the eligibility criteria and investment minimum for such fund.
Any income or capital gains distributed to shareholders prior to the Liquidation Date or as part of the liquidation proceeds will be subject to tax. All investors should consult with their tax advisor regarding the tax consequences of this liquidation.

Neither in this article nor the interview http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/08/buffett-called-me-a-hero-but-im-just-a-guy-who-gave-a-damn-about-investors-says-jack-bogle.html do I see where the explanation is provided.
The article would make sense to me if the title were changed to "John Bogle explains why index investors shouldn't fear the growth of indexing," and the sentence " Namely, what will those investors do when the market inevitably turns sour?" were deleted.

FYI: Very interesting visualization:
Regards,
Ted
http://ritholtz.com/2017/05/visualizing-usa-debt/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheBigPicture+(The+Big+Picture)

FYI: Investors are clearly shifting away from actively managed funds to those based on index strategies. Only time will tell, but this has the look of a durable, secular change in investment management. But much of the perceived threat to market stability of indexing is overblown. Overall, the stock market is still dominated by active management. And while the number of index products has clearly exploded, 96% of these are of insignificant size.
Regards,
Ted
http://fat-pitch.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-worry-over-indexing-is-overblown.html

FYI: Fresh off a weekend visit to the "capitalist Woodstock," the annual shareholders meeting for Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway BRK.A, +0.28% BRK.B, +0.24% , Vanguard Founder John Bogle addressed an interesting question that must vex any retirement investor who relies on index funds.
Bogle was asked the following Monday to explain if the move by investors toward index-style exchange-traded funds (ETFs) was creating a new kind of risk.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/buffetts-hero-john-bogle-explains-why-index-investors-need-not-fear-a-stock-downturn-2017-05-15/print

Re: "There is no genius to Bloomberg statement. What they are saying has always been the case."
Those of us who lived through the S&P 500 Index euphoria of the later 90s would tend to agree.
What may be different, however, is the magnitude: "Vanguard saw inflows of $1.8 billion on the active side and was the top fund family on the passive side, with inflows of $36.2 billion."
I've seen where over $1 Bil daily is flowing to Vanguard - most going into passive funds.
And about 20 times greater (at Vanguard) than in 2000. The specific quotation/source eludes me.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/14093218/1/morningstar-reports-us-mutual-fund-and-etf-asset-flows-for-march-2017.html

Someone smart once said that the goal of investing is to pay as much taxes as possible (the reason will come to you).

So you should live on a coast where you have the opportunity to pay more taxes on your investment earnings? :-)
Okay, I can see some sense in that. More high culture options (not forgetting the Chicago Symphony/Lyric Opera/Art Institute - another high tax state), better weather (at least the west coast and Hawaii; that state's got coasts too), and so on.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2017/04/05/these-states-where-you-pay-most-taxes/100064034/
At the risk of repeating myself (from 2013), I think Jim Lebenthal said it better (or smarter): "It's not how much you earn that counts, it's how much you keep." Sometimes earning less leaves you with more to keep. Especially if you're investing with a moderately short term target in mind.

You mentioned PTIAX. I'll keep it concise: you get a mildly rate sensitive holding, with some protection against an equity downturn, with 5%+ yield. I've not run across anything else like it, though the strategy isn't at all complicated or genius-level.

@275LB_NY_MCPO,
Basically yes. I generally prefer mutual funds over ETFs without dealing with the ask/bid spread. EMB provides a low cost broad exposure to EM debts while the debts are currency hedged (or in USD). The daily trading volume is high enough that minimizes the spread. Similar EM bond mutual funds, on the other hand, cost considerably more. PELBX is more an opportunistic play on the local currency. Because of the added currency risk, I keep the % about half of that of EMB. I keep reminding myself of 2007 where the drawdown was significant.

FYI: Markets always seem easy when looking through the rearview mirror because knowing what already happened makes us all feel that everything in the past was blatantly obvious. It makes us feel that we would perfectly navigate those markets if only we had the chance to invest in the same scenario again.
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2017/05/how-many-will-stay-the-course-during-the-next-bear-market/

@Josh, I am confused about why you own what you already own, and did not trace back to the soon house-purchase plan. Depending on horizon, if you want aggressive multisector bond, just split b/w PDI and PTY, though both are cefs trading at a premium now, hence probably require time to reduce risk of loss.
If you take the SP500 advice or go in the equity direction, buy DSENX and call it a day.

67 as of May 08, so maybe a recent birthday, and 411.com says 76
interesting piece, talk about outperformance:
http://archive.fortune.com/2008/05/23/magazines/fortune/birger_americas_hottest_investor.fortune/index.htm

75, it says
I made quite a lot with him and feel extremely lucky to have gotten out when I did

Hmm...I would seem he has stayed at 75 for long time. I'm going to dig deeper.

@VF
Thanks! Enjoy your Holiday weekend! I bet your wife enjoys your ANALysis too!!! Stay safe!

NO. She will divorce me. She has a PhD. She can spot people who speak from their behinds all the time. I got lucky.

Hi Josh!
Good to see you posting. Just my 2c or your port in the tax sheltered account. Use the S&P 500. You're young.....use that to your advantage. In the taxable area, it gets tougher. You need to put a percentage in and divulge how long you have had your holdings. It's a tax thing....
You say you will buy a house in a few years. Are you sure? FPACX I would cut; MANKX also. You want to make money, they don't. They're for when you're old. If you look at the port, POGRX and OAKIX is where I would put money for the future. As far as small and mid caps, I think this way trouble is coming. But long term looks good. I would say indexes, but with taxes and house coming soon, stay the course. As far as bonds, you're too young. Just my 2c.......
God bless
the Pudd

Interesting idea, albeit with a biased presentation.
The article says "Sure, a couple of funds will ...rise above the benchmark, but for most the result will be far less than the average. "
The average of the losers will be less than market performance (by definition of "loser"), but not that far less. That's because there are more of them than there are winners.
Think about dividing funds into outperforming and underperforming buckets. Assuming the funds are of equal dollar size, the larger bucket's average must be closer to market performance than the small bucket's. That's just simple arithmetic.
For example, suppose there are twelve funds covering the market. Suppose two outperform by $5 (total excess return of $10). Then the other ten funds will underperform (on average) by just $1.
We can invert the 5 poker chip example in the article. Instead of having funds pick two chips out of a market of five, as the example in the article does, suppose all funds pick two stocks to exclude. Just as 6 out of 10 funds miss the big winner if they pick only two chips, 6 out of 10 funds will miss excluding the big winner if they exclude two chips. So 6 out of 10 funds will be winners (but not big winners).
All just a little fun with numbers. It gets back to Sharpe's observation that the average dollar must get the average return before subtracting fees.

FYI: Putnam Investments plans to introduce three new alternative types of mutual funds that will be managed by PanAgora Asset Management, a Boston firm that typically manages money for institutions and is majority-owned by Putnam.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/05/24/putnam-unveils-three-new-alternative-mutual-funds/LiuZDWWbKt9bF9HCfWk54L/story.html

FWIW, the number three holding according to Bloomberg is Sberbank.
The fund began just three years ago, Jan 1, 2014. The inception date reported by Bloomberg appears to be the "strategy" inception date of Jan 1, 1990 (also reported on the fact sheets).
https://www.orbisaccess.co.uk/our-funds/global-equity-fund/
I've been reading through the prospectus, and while the 50,000 foot level description by Bloomberg is okay, the details seem significantly different from what's in the article. For example, the performance fee (or refund) is assessed daily, not semimonthly as Bloomberg writes. The amount is 50% of the excess (shortfall), not 33%. And so on.
I suspect that the fund would have problems registering in the US because the performance fee structure is not perfectly symmetric. Given that the fund's base fee is zero, I think it would be required to return fees in case of underperformance. The fund does not return performance fees if the reserve set aside is depleted, i.e. the management company does not make up this shortfall. Unlike Bridgeway, which actually paid into one of its funds for underpeformance at one point.

For disclosure purposes... I do own OAKIX, WAIGX and TAREX. Some of my domestic equity mf's have anywhere from 0-20% international exposure. My portfolio currently sits @20% international equity... enough??? Do I need 8-10 mf's dedicated to international/Asia??? Just saying...

I will let someone else attempt to give you a definite answer. I will give you mine.
IMHO, you have demonstrated you have a sound head already. You have already concluded you do not, or you wouldn't have asked the question. Because it is quite clear it does not make sense to you. Or sense FOR you. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. If it indeed has to be so then YOU in time will figure it out, and that is good enough. I have learnt from my mistakes. I never learnt from OTHER people's mistakes.
If you listen to "expert" telling you US is dead, International reigns supreme, you could go 100% international. Whatever you decide one thing to remember is that you don't make a living the same way as this "expert" does. HE (and I don't say SHE because we know gender diversity does not exist in the field of "expertise" we are talking about) has already made his money shoving his "expertise" down your throat. Those are HIS earnings. What you do makes no difference to HIM. It will make a difference to YOU.
YOU decide. And once again, when I say "expert" I meant the financial pron stars. MFO "experts" are not experts, they are your well wishers and your "teachers". That's how I see it.
Happy Anniversary to ME. No, REALLY. Now let me sell some of my international holdings and show my wife a good time.

FYI: The New York Yankees. The New England Patriots. The UCLA Bruins. The Vanguard Group?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-05-26/vanguard-is-king-because-mutual-funds-aren-t-jeans