Goldman's chief equity strategist David Kostin provides the following slide to sum up the firm's outlook for the major global markets in 2015 and beyond:
businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-global-macro-forecasts-2015-4

FYI: Biotechnology has been one of the best performing industries in the stock market over the past several years. According to S&P Capital IQ, there were numerous catalysts, for this substantial stock outperformance, including several blockbuster drug approvals that drove significant sales and earnings growth. Yet, S&P CIQ thinks the industry’s drivers, including a robust pipeline, remain intact and have a positive fundamental outlook - See more at: http://www.indexologyblog.com/2015/04/17/biotech-has-more-room-to-run/#sthash.O8OC1ZJJ.dpuf
Regards,
Ted
http://www.indexologyblog.com/2015/04/17/biotech-has-more-room-to-run/
ETF Trend Article:
http://www.etftrends.com/2015/04/biotech-etf-run-not-over-yet-says-analyst/

India plans to raise about $6.5 billion (Dh24bn) by taxing foreign firms for capital gains they made in previous years."

Don't think that move would encourage foreign investment.

FYI: We generally only share links in this space when we see stories on other sites that we think will benefit our readers. But today marks a rare case where a competitor is offering advice that is so egregiously irresponsible it needs a rebuttal.
James Altucher, in a short video on Business Insider, is telling young people not to invest in a 401(k). This is terrible counsel on many levels. The disappearance of pensions and underfunding of Social Security have made the 401(k) our de-facto national savings plan. Altucher’s recklessness is exacerbated by an implication that 401(k) accounts are some sort of black box – “you have no idea what’s happening to that money,” he says darkly.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/04/21/yes-millennials-please-invest-in-your-401k/tab/print/

The India related funds have been weak for the past several weeks; somewhat, perhaps related to profit taking from the previous run in prices.
A note from the article: "India plans to raise about $6.5 billion (Dh24bn) by taxing foreign firms for capital gains they made in previous years."
This article relates some new information relative to taxation of investments towards some organizations, which may of value for your investment decisions.
Regards,
Catch

More fun with numbers here. Not commenting on the Australian plan, but what strikes me as an apples-to-oranges comparison.
In the lead paragraph that Ted quotes above, we have the statement that over 90% of Australians put money into the system. That sounds to me like a low number for a system that is mandatory.
The article then goes on to say that in a 2011 EBRI study (the article itself is from two years ago), 40% of working Americans participated in an employer retirement plan. That looks very low compared with Australia (which is a point of the article), until one looks at what this 40% figure represents.
According to the EBRI paper, 75.2 million workers worked for an employer that provided a retirement plan (defined benefit, i.e. traditional pension, and/or defined contribution, like a 401k plan). Of these, 61.0 or over 80% participated. Remember too, that just because an employer offers a plan doesn't mean that all employees are qualified to participate. So the actual participation percentage of those eligible to participate is higher still. Getting pretty close to Australia's figures - and that's on a volunteer basis.
If one wants to find fault in the low participation rate, blame it on the fact that (according to EBRI) only 48.9% of workers even worked for an employer offering a retirement plan (whether or not they qualified to participate). If there's something to fix, it would seem to be getting more employers to offer retirement plans, not raising employees' interest in participating.
Here's the EBRI summary and paper.

Vanguard target funds for your 401Ks whenever you can get them. adjust your bond to equities by picking the appropriate retirement year ie. 2050 or 2025 ect.
In your individual accounts IRAs or Brokerage Vanguard has better choices,
Don't use Fidelity so don't comment or care... better options

From the article:
"I’m not suggesting that every investor has to implement these specific constraints to guide their actions. But all investors do have to figure out which constraints to place on themselves based on their past history and personality traits. Everyone has their blind spots.
>>> = my reply within my own constraints
>>>Yup. We've chatted about this here. Better know who you are and what tweaks you around the edges.
These are a few more examples I’ve seen from others over the years:
◾Don’t invest in anything you don’t understand.
>>>'Course...
◾Stay within your circle of competence.
>>>Not unlike driving an auto, eh?
◾Never pay more than a certain fee level for investment products.
>>>Okay. Pick a number
◾Give yourself 5-10% of your portfolio to speculate to appease your gambling instincts.
>>>At least. But, don't ever forget you're playing with the big kids with investments and may get your clock cleaned too, with particular investments every now and then
◾No more than a certain percentage invested in any one security or asset class.
>>>Diversification I'm guessing. Know thy self again here.
◾Only look at your portfolio value monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.
>>>Holy crap. You'll probably miss sells and buys if you wait long enough. See below
◾Rebalance on a set calendar schedule or when your allocation weights hit a certain band outside of their target.
>>>More of a know thy self or to each his own, eh?
◾Wait at least a week to implement a new investment decision.
>>>Depends how well you understand what you're doing. You should have already been thinking about a new investment; unless you look at your portfolio rarely, as noted just above
◾Talk to an unbiased outside observer about every big portfolio move you’re about to make.
>>>MFO is a good start, unless you have someone near with a known steady brain cell pattern
◾Actively seek out opposing viewpoints on your current investment stance.
>>>Same as above, although their are those here who consider this to be a no-no from a total stranger encountered via the internet, but likely an unbiased outside observer, as noted above
◾Keep a decision journal and review before making any new portfolio moves.
>>>One can't perform this function well if they follow the review plan as noted above
◾Only allow a certain number of transactions per year.
>>>Say what? And this has to do with ??? I suppose this fits into the "look" at your portfolio sequence noted previous...annually.
Now is probably a good time to review your own constraints within your investment plan. Interest rates are low. Stock prices are high. This stage in the cycle can lead people to relax their risk controls and press the issue if they’re not careful.
>>>Is there a special time to review one's constraints? How about very often.
I’m of the opinion that most investors would be better off making fewer decisions and getting rid of any unnecessary clutter from their portfolios and investment process. Placing constraints on yourself is a great way to do this. The first step is understanding yourself and your own flaws, something that’s not as easy as it sounds, since the easiest person to fool is often yourself.
>>>Who is the clutter decider ??? Some folks have considered bond portfolio portions to be clutter over the years. Depends, eh?
And no..........none of this is supposed to be easy.
>>>Lastly, one can always do a VTI and BND, 50-50% mix and go take a long nap. Wait, I already visited this area before. Time to move along. The article is pretty good for the most part and for almost everyone.
Have fun folks.
Catch

FYI: In 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission published a study, mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, which concluded that all financial advisers and stock brokers should be placed under “a uniform fiduciary standard.” Basically this meant that brokers and advisers would have an obligation to put the interests of clients first and must disclose any conflicts of interest that might compromise that duty.
Wall Street was none too happy about this. The industry spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying to prevent this standard from becoming the law of the land. Indeed, of all the regulatory reforms that have come out of Dodd-Frank, nothing seems to displease the financial industry more than the proposed fiduciary rules.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/making-stock-brokers-work-for-clients-is-past-due

I might compare it to COLLX or GATEX or RSAIX, although their stated goals are less about income and more about reducing volatility.
NEIMX might be a similar fund as it also tries to get some income from a similar strategy.
There's a CEF that uses a covered call strategy: Madison/Claymore Covered Call & Equity Strategy Fund - MCN
Here are a few articles are collar strategy mutual funds:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/18COLLAR.html?_r=0
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=675037
http://investorplace.com/2012/03/dont-bother-with-mutual-funds-that-use-options/#.VTVWwC4gimU

It's all of the place this morning:
Reuters: "Carlyle to shutter its two mutual funds"
Bloomberg: "Carlyle to close two mutual funds in liquid alts setback"
Ignites: "Carlyle pulls plug on two mutual funds"
ValueWalk: "Carlyle to liquidate a pair of mutual funds"
Barron's: "Carlyle closing funds, gold slips"
MFWire dutifully linked to three of them in its morning link list
Business Insider gets it closest to right: "Private equity giant Carlyle Group is shutting down the two mutual funds it launched just a year ago," including Carlyle Global Core Allocation Fund.
What's my beef?
1. Carlyle doesn't have two mutual funds, they have one. They have authorization to launch the second fund, but never have. It's like shuttering an unbuilt house. Reuters, nonetheless, solemnly notes that the second fund "never took off [and] will also be wound down," implying that - despite Carlyle's best efforts, it was just an undistinguished performer.
2. There is no such fund as Carlyle Global Core Allocation Fund. Its name is Carlyle Core Allocation Fund (CCAIX/CCANX). It's rather like the Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund that, despite Janus's insistence, didn't exist at the point that Mr. Gross joined the team. "Global" is a description but not in the name.
3. The Carlyle fund is not newsworthy: it's less than one year old (I detest the practice of tossing a fund into the market then shutting it in its first year; it really speaks poorly of the adviser's planning, understanding and commitment), it has a trivial asset base ($50 million) and has made a penny ($10,000 at inception is now $9930).
4. The stories tend to make exactly the same points, in some cases using virtually identical phrasing.
David

>> insight and the skill to simplify complex problems without losing the basic message.
Well, there are widespread other views of this guy, the one below by an economics historian who held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. {Wow.]
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/inflationphobia-part-ii/
... Bartlett focuses largely on the malign influence of Henry Hazlitt, who was among other things writing many editorials for the New York Times always insisting that the answer to the Great Depression was to encourage big cuts in wages.
[Krugman:]
Hazlitt remains, by the way, a popular figure on the right. ... Hazlitt’s continuing popularity should serve as some kind of lesson to those ... who marvel at the continuing influence of inflation fearmongers; they’ve been wrong about everything for 5 years, so why do they still get treated as authority figures? Well, Hazlitt has been wrong about everything for more than 80 years, and is still regarded as a guru. Bad ideas, it appears, are extremely robust in the face of contrary evidence. The thing is, by the time Hazlitt was penning those editorials demanding wage cuts, Keynes and Fisher had already said everything that needed to be said. Keynes in 1930:

[I]f a particular producer or a particular country cuts wages, then, so long as others do not follow suit, that producer or that country is able to get more of what trade is going. But if wages are cut all round, the purchasing power of the community as a whole is reduced by the same amount as the reduction of costs; and, again, no one is further forward.
And Fisher pointed out in 1933 that a general fall in wages and prices actually makes things worse, by making debtors poorer in real terms; true, creditors are made richer, but because debtors are more likely to cut spending than creditors are to increase it, the overall effect is to deepen the depression.
One implication of all this is ... the paradox of flexibility: making it easier for wages to fall, as Hazlitt demanded then and his modern acolytes demand now, doesn’t just redistribute income away from workers to the wealthy (funny how that happens); it actually worsens the economy as a whole.
+++
Maybe Hazlitt is better in other areas.

Hi, VF.
I don't know the answer to the first. I do know that there have been managers who put every penny they have in their firm and in their funds at start-up to help get the fund to a viable level. As the years pass and things stabilize, they try to de-lever a bit, set up a 529 for the kids, rebuild their personal emergency account, buy shares of Etsy and so on. That causes them to sell shares of the fund, not from a lack of conviction but from competing obligations. That's sometimes misread, especially in the world of "press 'send' first, get the facts later," so they create a "that's something we don't talk about" policy.
Again, I don't know if that's the case here. Given Andrew's profound and ongoing commitment to the fund and his shareholders, though, I suspect something like it is the case.
As to the second, you always want to be careful of running afoul of the SEC's name rule. If you put the name of a distinct asset class in the name of your fund (David's Fund of Bankrupt Corporations), then you need to keep 80% of your assets there. Given the fluidity about what qualifies as an emerging market and the opportunity for gaining EM exposure through, say, investments in Irish companies, "overseas" in the name and "diversified global emerging markets" in the explanation might trigger far fewer headaches.
For what that's worth,
David

from p.21 of filing:
K2/D&S Management Co., L.L.C. (K2 Advisors), 300 Atlantic Street, 12th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901, is the Fund’s investment manager. K2 Advisors is a majority-owned subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc. Together, K2 Advisors and its affiliates manage, as of [_______], 2015, over $[___] billion in assets. K2 Advisors has been in the investment management business since 1994.
Under a separate agreement with K2 Advisors, each of the following Sub-Advisors serves as a sub-advisor to the Fund and manages a portion of the Fund’s portfolio:
Name of Sub-Advisor .................. Strategy ...................... Address of Sub-Advisor
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

Seems crystal clear to me. And, I suspect, from the day you put money into this fund, until the day it is withdrawn (mostly by them, all (?) of them) or redeemed (by you), may God have mercy on your investing soul. Aaaaaaaaaa-men.

@TheShadow, thanks for the article, that must be one of the earliest about GP and one of the only times they've actually done public interviews. We have to give @LewisBraham some credit for getting that interview!
It's interesting that he was pretty strong in his statement that they would close the whole firm at $1.5 - $2.0 billion because I'm sure it was no more than 6 months later when I was aware of them that they were pretty clear about $3.0 billion.
I assume these "Stalwarts" funds have to be on top of their $3 billion and potentially significantly on top since these are the bigger companies in their collection.
Maybe they have some good explanations for why this all makes sense but right now I'm doubting the whole story they've been telling since the beginning.

@AndyJ- Good morning. In the example that you give, you present an improbable extreme situation, obviously to illustrate your point, which is fair enough. In actuality, the mutual fund would more than likely bail out of that particular position as the most efficient way of dealing with it, and surely regulatory agencies would become involved also.
To be a bit more realistic, how about a real-life situation where a known butcher (remember "Chain-saw Al" Dunlap?) is attempting to dismember the Sunbeam Corporation. Surely it's believable that one mutual fund company might think that "Chain-saw Al" is just what's needed, while another mutual fund company might feel exactly the opposite. How much of the resources of the mutual fund industry is it efficient or practical to devote to a situation like that?
From another discussion, Crash opined the following: "Particular prescriptions are costing a criminal amount of money... Can you say, "Pfizer?" Six letters, but functions as a four-letter-word."
And my question with respect to that situation was this:
If a mutual fund management were to challenge the management of Pfizer, should it be to attempt to convince Pfizer to reduce their prices "so as to be more fair" to sick and needy consumers, or to maintain and increase their profits at the expense of those consumers? At least some of those consumers may very well also be investors with the mutual fund company.
My position is simply that mutual fund companies cannot consistently represent consumer's or investor's best personal interests, and so should just mind their own mutual fund business, and try to make as much profit as possible for their customers.

FYI: Last night at the Nasdaq Marketsite, Mark Hulbert and I served on a panel discussion entitled Defend Yourself: Top threats to investors in 2015. The event was organized by MarketWatch and we spoke to a standing-room only crowd of over a hundred individual investors, Dow Jones journalists and other financial industry folks.
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2015/04/19/the-biggest-threat-to-your-portfolio-2/

I don't think I like this aspect of the plan, although take out is tax free.
(Both contributions and investment earnings on them are subject to a 15 percent tax.)
DErf

Here is a Bloomberg news link from 2012 with Blake Walker mentioning "Stalwarts". This may be the first indication of their use of a "Stalwarts" fund.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-16/scouring-the-world-for-the-best-small-cap-stocks