"Wow, they phone-called you. How desperate are they for votes???"
Last weekend we were at our place up on the Russian River, north of SF. The phone there is still listed in my father's name (not the same as mine) as it has been since the 1950's. My wife, not being aware of the Matthews situation, answered what she thought was a cold-call from someone selling "an Asia fund", who asked for me by name. That number, while listed in the phone directory under my father's name, has NEVER been given out to any financial or commercial interest, and in fact is rather closely kept information.
If Matthews was the caller, they must have hired some database outfit to call every Northern California listing with my surname.
We have also received two mailings, and multiple emailings at our San Francisco residence. But no phone calls, possibly because the SF number is unlisted.
Sure does sound as if someone is pretty desperate.

Recent MFO fund profile here: James Balanced Golden Rainbow Fund, August 2015.

Hi ron.
The legacy version of Risk Profile above can be obtained by entering a single symbol here. Return ranking is provided for all evaluation periods (1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years), as applicable. But the metrics, like STDEV, are just for the oldest of these. There is a nice comparison, however, with various reference funds across same eval period as the age group of requested fun (entered symbol).
The outputs above are from MFO Premium, which I believe David will announce very shortly.

@little5bee
I think this is a trading vehicle designed with the intention it be used as an investment vehicle. [see Professor Dave's opinion about this, expressed well in the September Commentary http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2015/09/september-1-2015/ ] That's a bad recipe, IMO fraught with peril. Pardon (or enjoy) the imagery, but I think someday, paraphrasing former US Attorneys General and convicted felon John Mitchell, somebody's gonna get their titties caught in the wringer.

@little5bee: I'm negative on fund-of-funds, with an .94% expense ratio. I'd rather own a biotech fund, such as FBTCX, a general healthcare fund, like PRHSX, QQQ, in the tech space, and XLY and XLP
Regards,
Ted
M* Snapshot FV
:http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/xnas/fv/quote.html

thoughts on this ETF?
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151023/FREE/151029943/advisers-flocking-to-an-etf-that-costs-more-than-a-mutual-fund?issuedate=20151118&sid=ETFREPORT&utm_source=ETF-20151118&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=investmentnews&utm_term=text

Osterweis OSTFX, as of 9/30, had Valeant Pharma @4.3%, yet it is not on M*s list. Hmmm. Well, checking their site, I see they've posted a 10/30 holdings list, and whaddayaknow---- no Valeant, poof, all gone. (also completely gone from OSTVX) O.K., not gonna wait around for the next shoe to drop. Investors will be paying a price for the excision; yr-end CG est. were released today, and OSTFX= $5.14 LTCG [obviously, just a chunk of this is Valeant, other harvesting took place elsewhere during the yr]

It continues, just as Professor Dave speculated it would.

On September 22, 2015, the Board of Trustees of Forward Funds (the “Trust”), including all of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trust (as that term is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended), approved the liquidation of the Forward Tactical Enhanced Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust.

My my, such specificity! I wonder why it was felt such additional wording was necessary.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/889188/000119312515380610/d12979d497.htm
497 1 d12979d497.htm 497 FOR FORWARD FUNDS
FORWARD FUNDS
Supplement dated November 18, 2015
to the
Summary Prospectus for Investor Class and Institutional Class Shares of the Forward Tactical Enhanced
Fund, Summary Prospectus for Class A, Class C and Advisor Class Shares of the Forward Tactical
Enhanced Fund, Forward Funds Investor Class and Institutional Class Prospectus and Forward Funds Class A,
Class B, Class C and Advisor Class Prospectus, each dated May 1, 2015, each as supplemented, and Forward Funds Statement of Additional Information dated November 3, 2015
NOTICE OF LIQUIDATION OF FORWARD TACTICAL ENHANCED FUND
On September 22, 2015, the Board of Trustees of Forward Funds (the “Trust”), including all of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trust (as that term is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended), approved the liquidation of the Forward Tactical Enhanced Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust. The Fund will be liquidated pursuant to a Board-approved Plan of Liquidation on or around December 23, 2015 (the “Liquidation Date”). On the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute pro rata to its respective shareholders of record all of the assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest, except for cash, bank deposits or cash equivalents in an estimated amount necessary to (i) discharge any unpaid liabilities and obligations of the Fund on the Fund’s books on the Liquidation Date, including, but not limited to, income dividends and capital gains distributions, if any, payable through the Liquidation Date, and (ii) pay such contingent liabilities as the officers of the Trust deem appropriate.
IN LIGHT OF THE PLANNED LIQUIDATION, SHARES OF THE FORWARD TACTICAL ENHANCED FUND WILL NO LONGER BE OFFERED TO NEW INVESTORS OR EXISTING INVESTORS (EXCEPT THROUGH REINVESTED DIVIDENDS) OR BE AVAILABLE FOR EXCHANGES FROM OTHER FUNDS OF THE TRUST.
****
PLEASE KEEP THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
SUPP TACT ENH LIQ 11182015

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916488/000091648815000044/p11115.htm
497 1 p11115.htm 405 P1 11/15
405 P1 11/15
SUPPLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 18, 2015
TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED AUGUST 1, 2015 OF
TEMPLETON BRIC FUND
(a series of Templeton Global Investment Trust)
The Prospectus is amended as follows:
The Board of Trustees of Templeton Global Investment Trust recently approved a proposal to reorganize the Templeton BRIC Fund (Fund), a series of Templeton Global Investment Trust, with and into the Templeton Developing Markets Trust.
It is anticipated that in the first calendar quarter of 2016 shareholders of the Fund will receive a Proxy and a Prospectus/ Proxy Statement requesting their votes on the reorganization. If approved by Fund shareholders, the transaction is currently expected to be completed on or about May 6, 2016, 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 December 21, 2015, the Fund will be closed to all new investors except as noted below. Existing investors who had an open and funded account on December 21, 2015 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 December 21, 2015, (1) clients of discretionary investment allocation programs where such programs had investments in the Fund prior to the close of market on December 21, 2015, 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 December 21, 2015. The Fund will not accept any additional purchases after the close of market on or about April 29, 2016. The Fund reserves the right to change this policy at any time.
Please keep this supplement for future reference.

M* Snapshot SHLMX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/SHLMX/quote.html
Bloomberg Snapshot: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/SHLMX:US
Official Sept. 30th holdings: http://www.shiplp.com/wp-content/uploads/INST_EMLC-Monthly-Holdings-9.30.2015.pdf
Bloomberg seems to be mixing apples and oranges. Its graphic makes clear that it is talking about two funds, including SHLMX, and asserts that each fund has around $6B AUM. But all the references I cited above (including Bloomberg's) give the fund's size as $1B.
Stone Harbor has another EM debt fund, SHMDX, with nearly twice the AUM ($1.8B). And it manages other EM debt funds as well. So its total EM debt AUM may be in the $6B range, but not with any one fund alone. Bloomberg didn't even pick their largest EM bond fund for the article, though it did pick the one closest in type to PIMCO's (local currency).

FYI: Pacific Investment Management Co. has lost its title as manager of the world’s largest emerging-market bond fund, battered by ill-timed bets that fueled an investor exodus.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-17/pimco-loses-emerging-market-bond-king-crown-as-assets-drop-62-
M* Snapshot PAEMX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PAEMX/quote.html

At least Schwab now charges the fee only on the front end. If you wanted to take some profits, rebalance, etc. the $49.95 they used to charge on the redemption end (for any amount) was steep.
And I don't like plunking down $100k all at once for any fund...not a good market timer.

But Schwab charges a ridiculous $75.95 for purchasing TF funds whereas Fido charges $49.95, also with no fee for redemptions.

At least Schwab now charges the fee only on the front end. If you wanted to take some profits, rebalance, etc. the $49.95 they used to charge on the redemption end (for any amount) was steep.
And I don't like plunking down $100k all at once for any fund...not a good market timer.

Many investors look at that $50 fee and think "why should I pay this, when I can get the same fund for 'free' (NTF)?"
If they're looking at investing $5K in a TF fund, they may be right. $50/$5K is 1% and typically buys an ER reduction of 0.25%. That's four years to break even. For a true long term investor, four years is nothing, but I suspect most investors look at that as "forever" , i.e. too long.
If anything, it seems that the minimums on institutional funds at brokerages seems to be going up (as contrasted with the increasing availability of load-waived retail funds). That could be due to the pricing structure imposed on TF funds. They pay fees, too.
0.10% of AUM or $20/account/year is what Schwab charges TF funds. The same sort of calculation as above applies to the what these funds pay. For high min funds, $20/year is peanuts. Drop the min below $20K, and the funds might as well just pay Schwab 0.10%/year to sell institutional shares. That's a big bump in expenses for this share class.
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/compensation_advice_disclosures/schwab_compensation.html#transaction_fee_funds

The minimum is 25K, so any advantage if it is exists is meaningless to me. I'm only in FAIRX because I was able to get in cheaper and I have never invested distributions back.

FYI: Amid the steep declines in the stock price of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., losses suffered by its largest shareholder, Sequoia Fund Inc., and by activist investor William Ackman have been well documented. But there are plenty of other funds that have likely been hit by the drop in the company’s shares.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/11/17/valeant-takes-bite-out-of-more-funds/tab/print/
VRX: Major Owners
http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-major.html?t=VRX&region=usa&culture=en-US&ownerCountry=USA

Don't think so. Most investors have difficulty paying $50 transaction fee (at least at Fidelity) to buy institutional mutual funds with higher $ minimum than $2,500. And there are additional fees for subsequent purchases.

What is the difference with the new fund? Perhaps they are planning to close the existing fund and put new investors in this one instead?
QSPIX has done very well since it opened. Even more so for the related QMNIX. These were on my watchlist, but recently AQR seems to have made it more difficult to access them for less than the $1m/$5m minimums. See the discussion here: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175359
Seems like Scottrade is one of the few available options right now.

I invested a third of my IRA in the Schwab intelligent portfolio at about a 60/40 mix. I invested in June of this year. I input the portfolio into M*. As of today the Schwab portfolio YTD is down -2.85%. Not sure when the data you show is from, likely end of 3rd quarter.

Looking at the data Zorilla included in the table at the link I posted, it appears that data runs through 11/13. But, in checking Zorilla's data, it indicates -- as an example -- that the share price change for BNDX is at -0.32% through closing on 11/13. But, in checking at M*, that site indicates the total return on BNDX is at 0.88% through 11/13. So, there is a difference of 1.20% related to reinvesting the dividends for BNDX. Zorilla's returns appear to only reflect changes in share prices. So, they understate the total returns through 11/13 (assuming dividends are reinvested in the same ETFs with no rebalancing).