@johnN: Mr, Faber nonsense has already been dealt with !!!!!!!!
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/28968/barry-ritholtz-faber-50-crash-coming-however#latest

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/marc-faber-big-one-coming-130539423.html
50% drop? hard to say...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/918294/000091829416000073/hsfhsihsphsvstatsticke-20162.htm
497 1 hsfhsihsphsvstatsticke-20162.htm
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund—I Class
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Portfolio
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Portfolio—II
Supplement to Prospectuses Dated May 1, 2016
Effective September 1, 2016, the T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund, T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund—I Class, T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Portfolio, and T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Portfolio—II (Funds) will resume accepting new accounts and purchases from most new direct investors. The Funds were closed to new investors on June 1, 2015, due to significant purchases and asset growth, which created challenges for the portfolio manager to invest fully in the health sciences industry. Given changed market conditions, the Funds’ investment adviser and Boards of Directors concluded it was in the shareholders’ best interests to reopen the Funds to new accounts.
Accordingly, effective September 1, 2016, the first sentence under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” in Section 1, and the first four paragraphs under “More Information About the Fund and Its Investment Risks” in Section 3, are deleted in their entirety from each prospectus.
Financial intermediaries, insurance companies, and other institutional clients should contact T. Rowe Price Financial Institution Services or their relationship manager to determine eligibility to open new accounts and purchase shares of the Funds.
The date of this supplement is August 10, 2016.

FYI: Offerings from Fidelity, Columbia, Janus and others look for inflection points of maximum pessimism about a particular stock or industry.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160808/FREE/160809951?template=printart

Wasn't there similar "investor concerns" floated in the media when Ebola resurfaced globally a few years ago? And then H1N1, SARS, and whatever else in recent years, too? Unless it's the zombie apocalypse (think: 'Resident Evil' movies) it won't impact my current portfolio positioning any, and won't factor into my investing decisions in the future either.
That said, mosquitoborne illnesses -- which I agree can be frightening -- are nothing new to much of the world....but Zika's impact on births, mothers, and pregnancies indeed is scary.
I remember stepping off the plane in Brasilia on a State Dept junket 12+ years ago and before I got out of the jetway the embassy staffer was spraying me down with DEET because of a Dengue outbreak in the country. That kind of scared me ... as did the mosquito I killed 3 days later in my hotel room, which thankfully didn't bite me. I played tourist anyway, albeit dying while wearing DEET-soaked long sleeves and jeans as i climbed Corcovado in 95F and uber-high humidity. ;/ (For years later, every time I got an ache or pain I couldn't account for I thought it might be delayed-action dengue. ;/)

@MFO Members: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Regards,
Ted
5 Things Investors Should Know About New Rules on Money-Market Funds:
https://www.google.com/#q=5+Things+Investors+Should+Know+About+New+Rules+on+Money-Market+Funds+wsj

Why would Vanguard offer VMFXX (gov't) at a 0.30% yield and Fidelity's best gov't fund is FDRXX at .11%?

Because Fidelity is a profit making organization and Vanguard isn't? Fidelity is actually outperforming before taking out its expenses (profits):
- VMFXX: 0.30% + 0.11% (ER) = 0.41%
- FDRXX: 0.11% + 0.37% (ER) = 0.48%
Note that Fidelity has a higher yielding government MMF available at the retail level ($500 min in IRAs): FZCXX, yielding 0.14%.

Three times the difference. Why doesn't Fido have a competitive offering in the gov't space?

Fidelity does have competitive funds - FDRXX shows up in the top ten retail government MMFs. Vanguard is the outlier.
http://www.imoneynet.com/retail-money-funds/government-retail.aspx

I need to change my brokerage MM to a gov't option or ultra short CD soon to avoid the pitfalls of the new law.

Ultra-short bond funds still have one of the "pitfalls" of some of the new MMFs - a floating NAV.
What pitfall are you trying to avoid, and what's your risk tolerance? The fact that you've been using MMFs says that you've been willing to accept the possibility of losing money, perhaps because you felt the risk of breaking a buck was sufficiently low that you'd take that gamble rather than keep money in an insured bank account.
The new MMF rules are designed to reduce that risk further. But if we have another 2008, you might have to wait a couple of weeks to get your cash if it's not in a government MMF. Do you need faster access to all your cash, or can you accept that risk with some portion of your money?

People are saying there is a bank account option in some brokerage accounts. Do they mean CD's? If not, what bank account options do they mean?

They mean using a bank account as your transaction/core account, which is where cash awaiting investment is kept for you in a brokerage. That transaction account can be structured one of three ways (not all of which are available for all accounts at all brokerages):

• cash account (the brokerage holds your money and may or may not pay you interest; if the brokerage goes bust, you stand in line with its other creditors)
• MMF (your brokerage "checking" account is a government MMF that has a remote possibility of breaking a buck)
• Bank sweep (money is moved automatically between one or more bank checking accounts and your brokerage account so that it "feels" like your transaction account really is the bank checking account)

Scottrade does a pretty good job of describing how a bank sweep account in general, and theirs in particular works. Here's itsdisclosure statement as well.
Similarly, here's Fidelity's description of its bank sweep feature (note that Fidelity only makes this available on CMA, IRA, and HSA accounts), and its disclosure statement.
AFAIK, Vanguard does not provide a bank sweep option.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1558107/000104916916000045/sticker-cuppsallcapgrowthfun.htm
497 1 sticker-cuppsallcapgrowthfun.htm
ALPS SERIES TRUST
CUPPS ALL CAP GROWTH FUND AND CUPPS MID CAP GROWTH FUND
Supplement dated August 9, 2016 to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated January 28, 2016 and as supplemented on June 28, 2016, for the Cupps All Cap Growth Fund and Cupps Mid Cap Growth Fund, series of ALPS Series Trust (the “Trust”)
On August 9, 2016, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Trust, based upon the recommendation of Cupps Capital Management, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Cupps All Cap Growth Fund and the Cupps Mid Cap Growth Fund (the “Funds”), series of the Trust, determined to close and liquidate the Funds. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders that the Funds be closed and liquidated as series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on August 31, 2016.
The Board approved a Plan of Termination, Dissolution and Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Funds will be liquidated.
Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Funds’ liquidation, the Cupps All Cap Growth Fund will be closed to new purchases effective as of the close of business on August 9, 2016. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of the Fund after August 9, 2016, and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on August 31, 2016 will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Funds unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases as of August 9, 2016, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Fund after August 9, 2016, as provided in the Prospectus. Please note, however, that the Fund will be liquidating its assets as of the close of business on August 31, 2016.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on August 31, 2016, the effective time of the liquidation, your shares will be redeemed, and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund as of August 31, 2016, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax adviser for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
Shares of the Cupps Mid Cap Growth Fund have not previously been made available to the public.
All expenses incurred in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Plan, other than the brokerage commissions associated with the sale of portfolio securities, will be paid by the Adviser.
Please retain this supplement with your Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.

FYI:(I have owned PFF since 3/11/09, with a monthly dividend of between 5 and 6% year in year out.)
Investing can be a tricky dance between sometimes dueling aims. An ETF investor may look for ways to earn stock-like returns with less risk or to balance growth and income needs.
Those conflicting goals have come more sharply into focus in today's challenging markets. And that's helping some exchange traded funds to make nimble-footed moves on the floor of the stock market.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/etfs/convertible-funds-beckon-with-growth-potential-and-safer-yields-up-to-5/

ACMVX is open to new investors. From the summary prospectus:
"As of November 1, 2013, the fund is generally closed to new investors other than those who (i) invest directly with American Century (where American Century is listed as the dealer of record); (ii) invest through certain financial intermediaries selected by American Century; or (iii) otherwise qualify for an exemption under American Century’s closed fund policy."
If you don't already have an account with AC, you can open one here.

Good to know for some investors. I purchase through Fidelity and Vanguard only, so it's not available with them at the moment.

This year it has climbed from 21 to 25. That would seem to limit potential for future gains. The highest it's been since 2003 (excepting 2008-9 when the denominator approached zero). How does the p/e affect your investing decisions?

Hi @JohnChisum,
Thanks for the heads up on AMJVX (broker sold ticker AMJAX). Although, it is a relative new fund I like it's sector allocation with it's top three sectors being real estate (43%), energy (15%) and financials (12%). With this, I think it is well position and I am thinking that it can adjust it positioning form time-to-time as to how its managers are reading the markets. In addition, I like its overall asset allocation and style mix.
I have started building another portfolio which is being funded from distributions from mine and my wife's self directed IRA accounts. We are not wanting the balances in these IRA accounts to keep growing. With this, we have started taking all mutual funds distributions (interest, dividends and capital gains) in the form of IRA distributions. While these IRA distributions are taxable as income we are putting these monies to work in some hybrid mutual fund selections held in a joint account that in return will generate a good deal of income while providing for some capital appreciation. I am currently, two years into the development of this joint account and it is already putting a little jingle in our pockets.
I am in the process of expanding three of my twelve sleeves found in my portfolio sleeve management system from six funds to nine funds each with the addition of this account since it will be comprised of mostly hybrid funds found in the hybird income sleeve, domestic hybrid growth & income sleeve and global hybird growth & income sleeve. AMJVX will become an addition to one of these sleeves. I might, in time, add a couple of equity funds such as TWEIX, FDSAX and SVAAX to the joint account's fund mix but most likely I will not be expanding the number of funds within the sleeve that holds these three funds which now has a total of six funds.
Thanks again for the heads up on AMJVX.
It is indeed appreciated.
Cordially,
Old_Skeet

FYI: The manager of MFS Diversified Income says he is more cautious about stocks than he was a month ago.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/strategist-manager-james-swanson-is-wary-1470621721
M* Snapshot DIFAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/DIFAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot DIFAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/DIFAX
DIFAX Is Ranked #29 In The (CA) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/allocation--30%-to-50%-equity/mfs®-diversified-income-fund/difax

ACMVX is open to new investors. From the summary prospectus:
"As of November 1, 2013, the fund is generally closed to new investors other than those who (i) invest directly with American Century (where American Century is listed as the dealer of record); (ii) invest through certain financial intermediaries selected by American Century; or (iii) otherwise qualify for an exemption under American Century’s closed fund policy."
If you don't already have an account with AC, you can open one here.

Assets in a Roth are all taxed the same (i.e. usually not taxed). Nothing special about collectibles.
I'm not sure what the question means. Contributing to a Roth always beats not contributing to any IRA, regardless of the investment, so long as the distributions are qualified (non-taxed), and the investment makes money. (If your investment loses money, you'd be better off having it in a taxable account where you could take the loss.)
Say you have $1K in income and you're in the 33% bracket. After taxes, you've got $670. The choice between contributing that $670 to a Roth or keeping it in a taxable account is obvious.
In the Roth, all growth is tax free. In the taxable account, the growth will be taxed. Doesn't matter whether it's a collectible (taxed at 28%), a savings bond (taxed at 33%), or a non-dividend-paying stock (taxed at 15%). The Roth saves you the tax, whatever the rate.
(The examples above were chosen because they spin off no income while owned. Savings are greater on investments that spin off income, like dividend paying stocks/funds, treasuries, REITs, etc.)
Unless you expect to be above the 28% bracket when you sell/retire/withdraw, the tax rate on collectibles is just the ordinary tax rate. The easiest thing to do in that case is just to think of the gold as a savings bond. If you expect to be above the 28% bracket, then think of gold as a non-dividend-paying stock that is taxed at 28% (instead of 20%) when sold. Still lower than your ordinary tax rate.
The cited article gives more detailed examples.

Interesting choice. It looks like you've highlighted the key difference between the two funds. Though I might add that as a consequence, DBLFX's broad allocations (government, corporate, securitized) hew much more closely to that of the typical fund.
It may come down to what you think of Treasuries. Bogle is not a lover of Treasuries, having stated that the index is too heavily weighted that way. On the other hand, Buffett has suggested that his heir divide investments between an S&P 500 index fund and short term Treasuries.
Personally, I prefer underweighting. Long term treasuries are IMHO only good for speculating on interest rates (1/6 of DBLTX's mature in over 25 years). Short term, and currently intermediate, Treasuries yield so little that they're effectively cash. (They yield as little or less than an individual investor could get insured in a bank account.)
Also, when I buy an actively managed fund, I look for a fund where the managers take positions that deviate significantly from the herd. Maybe Gundlach has with this fund; all I'm looking at is the current snapshot in time. He certainly does go his own way with some of his funds.
Disclaimer: I think that he is very sharp, though not as sharp as he thinks himself. So I expect this fund to be well managed and worth owning. Beyond that I can't say.

msf,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I am thinking of pairing DBLTX with BCOIX. One heavily mortgage oriented, the other corporate. One with higher rated bonds, the other with lower. Both unfortunately sport yields on the lower side, but BCOIX TR has been quite good in 2016. Can't say the same for DBLTX and hopefully the cause has been the type of mortgages, which can be adjusted, and not the large AUM (which may speak to more difficulty in adjusting).
TSP_Transfer, I own PTIAX and am pleased with the yield, TR, and stable NAV. While heavily mortgage based like DBLTX, obviously a different animal.
Mona

A little Oranges and Tangerines ,but...
Performance Trust Strategic Bond Fund PTIAX 1
$5,000/$500 N/L No Transaction Fee @ Fidelity
Multisector Bond
Inception Date 08/31/2010 Multiple Managers 6 years Assets $590.06
Ex Ratio 0.89%
1. No Transaction Fee funds are available without paying a transaction fee. No Transaction Fee funds will also be offered without a load or on a load waived basis. However, the fund may charge a short term trading fee or a redemption fee
$5,000/$500 N/L No Transaction Fee @ Fidelity
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/89833W394
Performance Trust Strategic Bond Fund (PTIAX)
FUND INSIGHTS
What Sets Us Apart:
JUNE 30, 2016
http://ptiafunds.com/documents/ptam-difference_ptiax_final.pdf

Bob, for any one who has decided to invest -- not trade -- AU, I'd recommend they consider purchasing/holding physical AU.
The primary reason I suggest this, is that unlike owning mining stocks, bullion ETFs, or OEFs, buying/holding the physical bullion means that at least part of one's portfolio is private, and beyond the knowledge of any Wall Street custodian, govt bureaucrats, or even one's spouse (unless one chooses to volunteer the information).

See CNBC: Owning Gold Is One Thing, Storing It Quite Another
Whether you hold the gold yourself or have another party hold it, there's always the risk of loss by theft, unless you insure the gold. That creates a paper trail.
The article goes into other problems with physical ownership, but I'm addressing the matter of secrecy. It's relatively easy to keep information secret. It's more difficult to eliminate all the breadcrumbs that could be followed by a sufficiently determined actor.
There's also a tax matter - gold is taxed as a collectible (28%), not a capital asset (0% - 20%). That's true for physical gold and physical gold ETFs, but not for mining stocks or foreign based gold CEFs like CEF. Futures-based ETFs/ETNs get yet a different treatment.
Tax-efficient investing in gold (Journal of Accountancy) gives a solid analysis of the tax implications of various gold-based investments held in various ways: non-sheltered, pre-tax sheltered (e.g. traditional IRA) , post-tax sheltered (e.g. Roth IRA).

Interesting choice. It looks like you've highlighted the key difference between the two funds. Though I might add that as a consequence, DBLFX's broad allocations (government, corporate, securitized) hew much more closely to that of the typical fund.
It may come down to what you think of Treasuries. Bogle is not a lover of Treasuries, having stated that the index is too heavily weighted that way. On the other hand, Buffett has suggested that his heir divide investments between an S&P 500 index fund and short term Treasuries.
Personally, I prefer underweighting. Long term treasuries are IMHO only good for speculating on interest rates (1/6 of DBLTX's mature in over 25 years). Short term, and currently intermediate, Treasuries yield so little that they're effectively cash. (They yield as little or less than an individual investor could get insured in a bank account.)
Also, when I buy an actively managed fund, I look for a fund where the managers take positions that deviate significantly from the herd. Maybe Gundlach has with this fund; all I'm looking at is the current snapshot in time. He certainly does go his own way with some of his funds.
Disclaimer: I think that he is very sharp, though not as sharp as he thinks himself. So I expect this fund to be well managed and worth owning. Beyond that I can't say.