@msf- Am I off-base on this? Would appreciate your perspective.

I think @hank did a pretty good job responding. I've got just a couple of additional thoughts.
To put one of hank's comments more tersely, when I first read this thread a while ago, my reaction was: so that's how we get stagflation. A condition I never really understood, and still don't, but it seems like this is one way to go down that path.
The other is that adding taxes (in the form of tariffs or sales tax or ...) do create price inflation (as opposed to increasing money supply) when they're broad based. As this set of tariffs has become. But when narrowly focused, the price effect should be muted.
For example, the excise tax on cigarettes is high and focused on getting people off of smoking. There are alternatives, so that people may not feel the price hike (if they do give up smoking).
With 25% steel tariffs, I thought about car manufacturers shifting to aluminum, with "only" a 10% tariff. An added benefit would be lighter vehicles. But as this WSJ article notes, with Trump rolling back mileage standards, the benefit of using aluminum (which is still more expensive) is diminished. And there are other options, like carbon fiber. So there are substitutes that could dampen the steel tariff impact on prices in some industries.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-aluminum-cars-not-so-fast-1501473660

Long seen as a lighter but far more expensive alternative to steel for automotive manufacturers, aluminum has enjoyed a surge as engineers scramble to shave weight amid tighter emissions standards. ...
The new study projects North American light vehicle aluminum content at 520 pounds per vehicle in 2025, up sharply from today’s mix but down from a previous forecast by Ducker in 2014 for 547 pounds per vehicle by then.

Despite these studies, and the reality of increased aluminum usage, it's hard to forget the Chevy Vega aluminum block engine of the '70s for anyone who owned a Vega. (I know someone who did.)
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a3762/4293188/

Most significantly
"Gundlach told Reuters he was still forecasting 6 percent on the 10-year yield by the next presidential election or a year after."
That will be bad for stocks, funds and the economy.
David

I doubt we see the 10 year at 6% but retirees would love it and drool all over themselves. Can you imagine what CD rates would be with the 10 year at 6%. Even now with the 10 year a tad over 3% you can get 3.40% on a five year CD, a bit more on a 10 year. A five year ladder at around 3.05%.
I finally bought that vacation home in the mountains last week and that has drastically changed things going forward for me with CDs and money markets being part of my end game. I mean when I can now just buy CDs and still grow my nest egg after living expenses and taxes why take the risks of stocks and bonds. Never thought I would ever go for CDs, but then never thought I would be 71 either.

@hank- I dunno... that's three years out (2021)... lots can happen between now and then.
Edit: I asked this in another post a few days ago, but that post sort of lost interest, I guess. Gonna try again:
General question: If "US consumers will be paying more because of the tariff war, isn't that effectively the same thing as a decrease in their take-home pay"? And if that's correct, won't that eventually have the effect of reducing national consumption, retail purchasing, and business income? Since an increase in prices will effectively reduce the disposable income of consumers, it would seem that this would be so.
Also, wouldn't the increase in prices be tantamount to an increase in inflation? If that's true, wouldn't this eventually also have an effect on interest rates, as the Fed moves to adjust for that inflation?
It seems to me that this whole scenario might have long-term consequences that we haven't really considered. Whether Mr. Trump actually considers and understands the possibilities, I'll leave to your judgement.
@msf- Am I off-base on this? Would appreciate your perspective.

I sold my PKW end of 2016, having made some good profits, saw it starting to lag , and figured i was better off putting the money into VOO, which I have been increasing over the last two years.

FYI: Proposals to limit or bar U.S. stock repurchases may amount to kicking businesses when they’re down. Comparing the Nasdaq Buyback Achievers Index, whose companies repurchased at least 5 percent of their shares in the past 12 months, with the S&P 500 Index shows as much. The ratio between the indicators has dropped as much as 14 percent from a record set in April 2015, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Along the way, an Invesco exchange-traded fund that tracks the buyback index has risen at a 6 percent annual rate, four percentage points behind the SPDR S&P 500 ETF’s pace.
Regards,
Ted
http://ritholtz.com/2018/09/buybacks-have-more-than-u-s-popular-opinion-against-them/

FYI: (This is a follow-up article.)
In perhaps the wildest day yet for the nascent Weed Inc., shares in Tilray took a ride reminiscent of the Bitcoin craze and even the height of the dot-com bubble.
The maker of cannabis products nearly doubled before wiping out the entire gain in less than an hour, only to finish 40 percent higher than where it started. Sure, Tesla has delivered some whipsaw sessions and AMD has tripled this year, but Wednesday’s moves had a different feel.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-20/weed-stock-fortunes-made-and-lost-in-7-hours-of-wild-trading?srnd=premium
Barron's Article:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/tilray-stock-price-swings-1537439954

Most significantly
"Gundlach told Reuters he was still forecasting 6 percent on the 10-year yield by the next presidential election or a year after."
That will be bad for stocks, funds and the economy.
David

FYI: Jeffrey Gundlach, chief executive officer of DoubleLine Capital, on Wednesday said bond prices across the U.S. Treasury yield curve could fall if the 30-year yield closes above 3.25 percent twice in a row.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-doubleline-gundlach/doublelines-gundlach-warns-u-s-treasury-yields-headed-higher-idUSKCN1LZ2M9

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1521353/000089418918005249/mpft_497e.htm
497 1 mpft_497e.htm SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-174574; 811-22563
MAIRS & POWER FUNDS TRUST
Mairs & Power Small Cap Fund
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated September 19, 2018
to the Fund’s Summary Prospectus and Prospectus dated April 30, 2018
This supplement serves as notification of the following change:
Re-Opening of Mairs & Power Small Cap Fund
Effective as of the close of business on September 28, 2018, the Fund will re-open to all investors. Accordingly, all references to the Fund being closed to most new investors are hereby deleted from the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus effective as of the close of business on September 28, 2018.
Please contact the Fund (toll free) at 1-800-304-7404 for further information.
*******
Please keep this Supplement with your records.

@Old_Joe +1
BTW - That $1,000 gain puts you ahead of me for the entire (lousy) year.

A couple of weeks ago Ted mentioned the ongoing play in MJ, a marijuana etf. I bought 100 shares just for the hell of it. Today I sold those shares for a $1,000 profit.
Thank you Ted!
By the way, $100 of that was sent to MFO to help with the current funds shortage.
Regards
OJ

@ Ted: Why didn't you bump this link up from your post on Sept. 16 ?
Have a nice day, Derf

Since inception Hussman funds have been one of great destroyers of capital in the mutual fund industry, except for the fees they generate, which are currently as high as 2% per year. And even still, they maintain an AUM of $600M. Can you believe that?

It's not a particularly meaningful statistic. There are relatively few wealthy taxpayers and their contributions are capped at $5500 or $6500. So it's virtually impossible for the amount of dollars they contribute to exceed that of many more small contributions by the middle class.

That’s all correct. Thanks for the documentation. Notwithstanding those limitations, occassionally one of those folks just gets lucky. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-shelter-hundreds-of-millions-in-an-ira-account-2014-09-19

@Ted - The fund started in 2014. Did you mean YTD, 1 yr and 3 yr? Or perhaps this fund won't liquidate, but achieve a 100th percentile standing on its 5 year anniversary.
It's not that this fund has been so consistently bad. It's just that over the past 1.7 years this fund has been so spectacularly awful that its recent performance has pulled down its longer term figures.
It returned 19%, versus 21% for its peers in 2016. Not great, but hardly a disaster. And in its first full calendar year, 2015, it blew away its competitors, outperforming it peers by 3½%.
The Steadman funds had ERs pushing double digits. This one costs only 1.25% (investor class).
While this fund looks like it really did work at being bad (90% turnover, 51 stocks), sometimes you don't have to work much at all to look even worse. Berkowitz achieved that feat over at FAIRX by simply standing pat, with virtually no trading (7% turnover) and just 9 stocks. By doing almost nothing, he managed to achieve a perfect 100th percentile rating, not just YTD, 1 year, 3 year, and 5 year, but also 10 year, and probably further out if one can dig up those figures.

Now that the US 10 Year is above a yield of three percent I added to CTFAX with another buy step. According to Morningstar its current allocation bubbles at about 80% fixed income and 20% equity. In a stock market pullback CTFAX increases its position in equities while reducing its position in fixed income then rebalances as equities recover. Since it is usually at least 80% in fixed income I hold this fund within my fixed income sleeve.
Below is the charting for the yield of the US 10 Yr. Remember bond valuations run inverse of their yield.
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$TNX&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p70552233025

@MFO Members: Here's what you got for a 3.88% ER.
Regards,
Ted
YTD: 89 Percentile
1yr. 90 "
3yr. 92 "
5yr. 52 "

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/315774/000143510918000538/lmcg497.htm
497 1 lmcg497.htm
LMCG GLOBAL MARKET NEUTRAL FUND (the "Fund")
Supplement dated September 18, 2018 to the Prospectus dated August 1, 2018
On September 14, 2018, the Board of Trustees ("Board") of Forum Funds (the "Trust") approved a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution (the "Plan") pursuant to which the assets of the Fund will be liquidated and the proceeds remaining after payment of or provision for liabilities and obligations of the Fund will be distributed to shareholders. The Fund's investment adviser (the "Adviser") has recommended that the Board approve the Plan based on market conditions and economic factors adversely affecting the Fund and the Board concluded that it is in the best interest of the Fund's shareholders to liquidate the Fund pursuant to the Plan.
In anticipation of the liquidation, the Fund will stop accepting purchases into the Fund on September 18, 2018. Thereafter, the Fund will begin its process of winding up and liquidating its portfolio assets as soon as reasonably practicable. As a result, the Fund will not be pursuing its investment objective after September 18, 2018. Reinvestment of dividends on existing shares in accounts which have selected that option will continue until the liquidation.
The Fund anticipates that it will complete the liquidation on or around the close of business on or about October 31, 2018 (the "Liquidation Date"). On the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make liquidating distributions to each remaining shareholder, equal to the shareholder's proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund's shares held by the shareholder, and thereafter the Fund will be terminated and dissolved.
If you own Fund shares in a tax deferred account, such as an individual retirement account, 401(k) or 403(b) account, you should consult your tax adviser to discuss the Fund's liquidation and determine its tax consequences.
* * *
For more information, please contact a Fund customer service representative toll free at
(877) 591-4667.
PLEASE RETAIN FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
LMCG GLOBAL MARKET NEUTRAL FUND (the "Fund")
Supplement dated September 18, 2018 to the Statement of Additional Information ("SAI") dated August 1, 2018
On September 14, 2018, the Board of Trustees ("Board") of Forum Funds (the "Trust") approved a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution (the "Plan") pursuant to which the assets of the Fund will be liquidated and the proceeds remaining after payment of or provision for liabilities and obligations of the Fund will be distributed to shareholders. The Fund's investment adviser (the "Adviser") has recommended that the Board approve the Plan based on market conditions and economic factors adversely affecting the Fund and the Board concluded that it is in the best interest of the Fund's shareholders to liquidate the Fund pursuant to the Plan.
In anticipation of the liquidation, the Fund will stop accepting purchases into the Fund on September 18, 2018. Thereafter, the Fund will begin its process of winding up and liquidating its portfolio assets as soon as reasonably practicable. As a result, the Fund will not be pursuing its investment objective after September 18, 2018. Reinvestment of dividends on existing shares in accounts which have selected that option will continue until the liquidation.
The Fund anticipates that it will complete the liquidation on or around the close of business on or about October 31, 2018 (the "Liquidation Date"). On the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make liquidating distributions to each remaining shareholder, equal to the shareholder's proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund's shares held by the shareholder, and thereafter the Fund will be terminated and dissolved.
If you own Fund shares in a tax deferred account, such as an individual retirement account, 401(k) or 403(b) account, you should consult your tax adviser to discuss the Fund's liquidation and determine its tax consequences.
* * *
For more information, please contact a Fund customer service representative toll free at
(877) 591-4667.
PLEASE RETAIN FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

I see that the linkster is responding to comments about too many links by posting without including links. Sneaky :-)
https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data-shows-ira-contributions-made-middle-class-taxpayers/
This is old news (dated April 26th), though it seems that Ritholtz just picked this up today.
The headline isn't clear whether it's counting dollars contributed or just contributions in any amount. It is the former - not quite 50% of the total dollars contributed to traditional and Roth IRAs in 2015 came from individuals with AGIs under $100K. (Though if an individual was married filing jointly, the IRS attributed the total combined income separately to each spouse.)
It's not a particularly meaningful statistic. There are relatively few wealthy taxpayers and their contributions are capped at $5500 or $6500. So it's virtually impossible for the amount of dollars they contribute to exceed that of many more small contributions by the middle class.
According to the IRS tables, at most 10,668,441 "taxpayers" contributed to either a traditional IRA or a Roth in 2015. The precise number is less, because this figure double counts those who contributed to both.
These 10M contributors are but a small fraction of the 157M taxpayers eligible to make IRA contributions. That's at best a 7% participation rate. So while "tax-neutral savings accounts will continue to be an important source of capital income", that seems to apply to just small minority, however one wants to characerize them.
Sources (IRS Excel tables): 157M eligible taxpayers, and contribution/AGI data