Don't know who else has seen this, so here it is.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/10/09/barrons-hacked-ceo-warns-wider-plot/73663568/

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1423227/000119312515341145/d45141d497.htm
497 1 d45141d497.htm ALLIANZ FUNDS MULTI-STRATEGY TRUST
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
File Nos. 333-148624 and 811-22167
ALLIANZ FUNDS MULTI-STRATEGY TRUST
Supplement Dated October 9, 2015 to the
Statutory Prospectus for Class A, Class B, Class C, Class R, Class R6,
Institutional Class, Class P, Administrative Class and Class D Shares of
Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust,
Dated April 1, 2015 (as supplemented thereafter)
Disclosure Relating to AllianzGI Global Managed Volatility Fund (for purposes of this section only, the “Fund”)
Liquidation of the Fund
Effective on or about December 11, 2015 (the “Liquidation Date”), the Fund will be liquidated and dissolved. Any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed on the Liquidation Date. The proceeds of any such redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after dividend distributions required to eliminate any Fund-level taxes are made and the expenses and liabilities of the Fund have been paid or otherwise provided for. Allianz Global Investors Distributors LLC, the Fund’s distributor (the “Distributor”), will waive contingent deferred sales charges applicable to redemptions beginning five (5) business days prior to the Liquidation Date, including such Liquidation Date.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of the Fund and receive the net asset value thereof, pursuant to the procedures set forth under “How to Buy and Sell Shares” in the Prospectus. Shareholders may also exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of any other series of Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust (the “Trust”) or Allianz Funds that offers that class, as described under “How to Buy and Sell Shares—Exchanging Shares” in the Prospectus. Such exchanges will be taxable transactions for shareholders who hold shares in taxable accounts.
Redemptions on the Liquidation Date will generally be treated like any other redemption of shares and may result in a gain or loss for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Any gain or loss will be a capital gain or loss for shareholders who hold their shares as capital assets. Capital gains or losses will be short- or long-term depending on how long a shareholder has held his or her Fund shares. Shareholders should consult their own tax advisors regarding their particular situation and the possible application of state, local or non-U.S. tax laws.
Restrictions on New Purchases and Exchanges for Shares of the Fund
The Board of Trustees (“Board”) of the Trust has imposed the following restrictions on new purchases of, and exchanges for, shares of the Fund:
Effective as of the close of business on December 4, 2015, shares of the Fund will no longer be available for purchase by current or new investors in the Fund, other than through the automatic reinvestment of distributions by current shareholders, and shareholders of other series of the Trust and shareholders of series of Allianz Funds will no longer be permitted to exchange any of their shares for shares of the Fund, as described in the Prospectus under “How to Buy and Sell Shares—Exchanging Shares.”
The Board and the Distributor each reserves the right at any time to modify or eliminate the terms described above, including on a case-by-case basis.
Disclosure Relating to AllianzGI Global Allocation Fund (for purposes of this section only, the “Fund”)
On October 8, 2015, the Board of the Trust approved the elimination of all Class B shares of the Fund, to be accomplished through the accelerated conversion of Class B shares into Class A shares of the Fund (the “Class B Conversion”). Class B shares have not been available for purchase since November 1, 2009, other than through the reinvestment of distributions by current Class B shareholders.
The Class B Conversion will be effected on the basis of the relative net asset values of the Class B and Class A shares involved and, following the conversion, the Fund will cease to have any Class B shares authorized or outstanding. The Class B Conversion will take place pursuant to the Tenth Amended and Restated Multi-Class Plan of the Trust, which was approved by the Board at its October 8, 2015 meeting, and is expected to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2015. After the Class B Conversion, the Fund will cease to offer Class B shares.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

Would appreciate seeing some substantive disputing of this column:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/01/16/investing-international-funds/21825245/

FYI: Along with the Energy sector in the U.S., country ETFs around the world have experienced a big shift this week. Below you’ll see our trading range screen for the 30 largest country ETFs trading on U.S. exchanges. This screen gives you a great look at how global equity markets are trending in the near term. Last week, most of these country ETFs were below their 50-day moving averages and trending lower. This week, though, most have now re-taken their 50-day moving averages and broken their downtrends.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/global-stocks-shifting-positive/

Anyone use preferreds? They seem to be less volatile than REITs.

Yes, I'm new to preferreds, but owned PPSAX (lw at Fido) in 2014-early 2015 and now have a stake in a preferred cef. Good income, not all that volatile, but all the preferred funds I've looked at are at a high price to par now. They seem to do well about every other year and lag some in the off years, and they did great in 2014. Most of the funds I've considered are hybrids, with some straight corporate debt, so they act more like bonds than a REIT fund would. Make sure you check the credit exposure if you go shopping; the credit quality varies quite a bit.
The etf PFF is a quick & easy way to get exposure, but I "prefer" active management in preferreds.

Only bond ETFs, which are hard to get around. No cap gains on any of the equity ETFs, looks like, even though some are literally another share class of their mutual funds. Correct?

Charles,
To my understanding, Vanguard has not announced any of their 2015 year-end capital gains distributions yet.
Mona

No Capital Gains on the ETFs!

It looks like they've just rolled this page forward for 2015... the link you have shows Q3 2015 distributions. Actually, Vanguard paid out on a number of their ETFs last year (see the bottom of the page for the estimates here: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/update-prelimcapgains-112014).
They've even already paid out on one of their ETFs (BND) in 2015! See the April distribution for the Total Bond Market fund.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0928&FundIntExt=INT#tab=4

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/10/sp-500-bear-markets-of-20-or-more-2/print/

More Blackstone ( BX )
By LISA BEILFUSS WSJ
Updated Oct. 8, 2015 8:36 a.m. ET
0 COMMENTS
Blackstone Group L.P. will acquire BioMed Realty Trust in an $4.84 billion cash deal, adding more office buildings and laboratory-capable facilities to its real estate portfolio.
The $23.75 per share price tag represents a 10% premium over Wednesday’s closing price. Blackstone valued the deal at $8 billion, which may include debt. A representative wasn’t immediately available for comment.
Shares in Biomed Realty gained 8.6% in premarket trading. Blackstone shares were inactive.
Blackstone, the world’s largest private-equity firm, has been raising cash to make deals in the space, last quarter closing a $15.8 billion distressed and opportunistic real-estate funds
http://www.wsj.com/articles/blackstone-to-buy-biomed-realty-trust-for-4-84-billion-1444300840
More on @Scott mentioned stocks here:(Blackstone,Starwood Capital, Brookfield Asset
Management )(This ain't "Mainstreet "finance! )
3Q15
CAPITAL MARKETS REPORT
FOR THE INTELLIGENT INVESTOR
Overview
►
International capital
has accounted
for nearly
16.0%
of all United States sales activity, year to date, up from 10.0% from 2011-2014.
►
Capital investment from China to the United States has exceeded $5 billion in 2015, yet United States investment to China has been cut to $1.5 billion, year to date.
►
Of the ten foreign countries that have invested the most capital in the United States in the past 12 months, all have
purchased assets in Manhattan.
Canada and Singapore have invested in each of the 11 largest United States markets over the past 12 months.
►
Per square foot averages of institutional quality office buildings in major markets have exceeded the prior peak in 2008.

New York City sale prices are currently 14.6%
above the 2Q08 previous high, averaging $973 per square foot.

Asking rents in Manhattan remain 6.9% below the market peak in 2008, and 14.3% below the Midtown 2008 peak.
►
Investors
are seeking higher yields in secondary markets and nontraditional property types as gateway cities have become over saturated.
►
Current commercial and multihousing yields remain significantly higher than the 10
year treasury.
►
C M B S debt has experienced the most growth in 2015, expanding from 12.6% to 19.9% of all outstanding debt.
Concurrently, banks have cut their outstanding debt by 25.8% since 2014
http://www.ngkf.com/Uploads/FileManager/3Q15-Capital-Markets-Report.pdf

Most fund groups that push for insider ownership allow a little wiggle room. Managers might be required to place "substantially all of their investable assets" in the firm's products, or "all of their equity exposure" in their own fund, or invest their year-end bonuses in them. That allows them to put their kids' 529 money in target-date funds or to maintain age-appropriate income exposure and so on.
The rub is that the SEC does not require disclosure of a firm's policy, if any, and the SEC investment bands are badly out-of-date. The top band for fund directors is "over $100,000" and the top band for managers is "over $1,000,000." As stunning as I find the phrase "over $1,000,000," apparently large financial services firms compensate key personnel pretty generously. Who knew? For many, investments in the millions are routine and in the tens of millions are not unusual.
As ever,
David

FYI: Poor performance could send the income-generating category back to direct investing, where it belongs.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151007/BLOG12/151009946?template=printart

Thank you all for your advice!
I'm learning a lot and enjoying every second of it. I thought I was ok with an aggressive fund and am reassured of that when I was reminded that it's a long term plan. I obviously had a late start in my retirement investing and that's why I'm now putting in 20% of my income(plus the tax benefit). My company match is five percent so the IRA idea after the 5% is looking like a great idea. I just liked the convenience of the automatic withdrawal.
Another question for everyone. Where can I go to learn more about investing without the funds for the college experience?

Thank you David. Yes, I remember the heads-up in the commentary.
Hmmm, investors first...

c

I'm not running for president (yet -- I may be the only one), so I don't feel the need to divulge that info.

If you decide to run for President, you still don't have to divulge that info. You can just lie. You don't know I'm not running for President
:P

Had a savings account when I was a kid (1950s-60s). The bank gave me a little passbook and when I put saving in the local bank from my summer job, the bank teller would record the sum in the book and initial next to it. If I took money out of the bank, they would take the little book and record that.

@hank Wow...I had forgotten about that...me, too! Walking down Memory Lane right now :)
@Old_Joe agreed...not to mention people who have their "savings" in rental properties, businesses, etc.

@msf- math is certainly not my strong point, so this is probably a really stupid question: with respect to "below B" in that table, is it the assumption that 100% of the bonds in that category will default? That seems quite extreme, so it likely doesn't mean that. What is the implication of "relative" here? Does it perhaps mean that this category is 100 times more likely to default than "AAA"? If that's so, how would they come by that particular judgement?

The description of the table says that these are relative rates on a scale of 0 to 100. So the worst category (below B) is given an arbitrary figure of 100. The other categories are given figures representing the percentage of defaults they have relative to the percentage of defaults of "below B" bonds. Thus BBB bonds, with a relative rate of 5, default 5% as often as "below B" bonds.
What those rates are, I don't know. As I think about it, I can't say what period these rates are computed over. Is M* using a one year default rate (percent of BBB bonds that default within a single year), or more likely a cumulative default rate (percent of BBB bonds that default at one or more points over their lifetime)? "Default" almost certainly includes any bond that misses a payment; but does it include technical defaults (see Meridith Whitney), where some condition of the bond is violated even if all payments are made?
The NRSROs publish figures on defaults vs. ratings, so mappings from credit ratings to default rates are known. Here's a paper on defaults from S&P:
2014 Annual Global Corporate Default Study And Rating Transitions
P.S. Don't sell yourself short. It's not a stupid question, and I initially wondered about that 100 also. Below B bonds are either in risk of imminent default (C range) or in default (Ds); still some of these bonds don't default.

I like PIMIX/PONDX. I like to split my fixed income exposure in tax-deferred space into safer/high quality stuff and another with riskier/higher total return. I currently pair DBLTX with PDI which is an OEF managed by David Ivascyn. I replaced PIMIX with PDI when the discount was widened this Summer.
I like to keep 1/2 of my fixed income to diversify the equity risk. DBLTX is negatively correlated with equity. See here. FWIW, In taxable space, I own 1 OEF and 3 CEF muni funds.

Had a savings account when I was a kid (1950s-60s). The bank gave me a little passbook and when I put saving in the local bank from my summer job, the bank teller would record the sum in the book and initial next to it. If I took money out of the bank, they would take the little book and record that.
Nothing against banks or saving accounts. FDIC insurance is nice to have. But I tend to live on the edge in a lot of ways and am very comfortable with just about everything (liquid) we have in mutual funds.
If needed, I can write checks against our money market fund at T. Rowe Price ($500 minimum) or press a few keys on the IPad and have them shift $$ from any fund to our local bank overnight. So - excuse me, but I just don't get the big deal about savings accounts.
:)

Is DoubleLine's Jeffrey Gundlach The New Bond King?
JF talks about differences among TOTL, DBLTX, Core (DBLFX), and Flexible.
FWIW, I own DBLTX which is the best antidote for equity risk.

I doubt R shares would ever convert. They are more like C shares that never convert than like B shares (with high but declining deferred sales charges).
The purpose of the higher fees is to pay servicing expenses, not sales expenses, so you would expect them to persist. A 401k plan administrator has to service all its investors (just like a third party brokerage selling funds), but also has additional regulatory filings and procedures to follow. An administrator will charge to cover its costs (and make some profit).
In my mind, the two questions are: what's a reasonable charge, and who should pay it (employer or employee)?
Consider that brokerages like Fidelity and Schwab charge funds 40 basis points for shelf space (NTF funds). By that measure (given the additional work required of 401k plans), the 50 basis points doesn't seem out of line. But I would argue that the brokerage NTF fees are themselves excessive, and that most of the regulatory stuff done by plan administrators is boilerplate/automated. By that measure, the 50 basis points is too high, and that is what I think.
Who should pay is not as obvious as: well, of course the employer should pay.
Employers, especially small companies, have limited budgets, and allocate so many dollars per employee. Those dollars can go toward salary, toward vacation time, toward desk space, toward benefits. Demand that they pay for the plan and perhaps you'll get a smaller match (if any).
Small plans cost more per employee (fixed costs amortized over fewer people). That's why large companies almost always pay for the plans, while small companies shift costs. They may use annuities (where the administrator gets paid out of the annuity fees) or R class shares as here, or ...
IMHO this isn't "evil", but it should be clearly disclosed and should be a reasonable amount.