@JohnChisum
Hmmmm.....okay. I thought that linkage was complete last fall. Perhaps I didn't understand the whole package and time frames. Although Shanghai has been doing well; nothing like what is taking place in Hong Kong right now.
Here are a few related news stories.
Thanks, John.

Fed's Concerns
A nostalgic time before the DotCom crash and of course 9/11 and "the great recession".They called him the maestro for a while,didn't they? Are current conditions a "favorable economic environment".
Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
The Federal Reserve's semiannual monetary policy report
Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
February 26, 1997
"Why should the central bank be concerned about the possibility that financial markets may be overestimating returns or mispricing risk? It is not that we have a firm view that equity prices are necessarily excessive right now or risk spreads patently too low. Our goal is to contribute as best we can to the highest possible growth of income and wealth over time, and we would be pleased if the favorable economic environment projected in markets actually comes to pass. Rather, the FOMC has to be sensitive to indications of even slowly building imbalances, whatever their source, that, by fostering the emergence of inflation pressures, would ultimately threaten healthy economic expansion.
"I will conclude on the same upbeat note about the U.S. economy with which I began. Although a central banker's occupational responsibility is to stay on the lookout for trouble, even I must admit that our economic prospects in general are quite favorable. The flexibility of our market system and the vibrancy of our private sector remain examples for the whole world to emulate. The Federal Reserve will endeavor to do its part by continuing to foster a monetary framework under which our citizens can prosper to the fullest possible extent."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/1997/february/testimony.htm
Global Economy's Manufacturing Sector Struggles
by Robert Brusca April 6, 2015
"Against this background, it is hard to understand the Fed's compulsion to hike rates. There are no capacity constraints in the U.S. or even in the global economy. Manufacturing everywhere is extremely weak. There has been a lot of monetary stimulus and the countries that did that early have fared better (the U.S. and the U.K.). But now that stimulus is wearing off and the stimulus launched in Europe is playing a part by driving the euro lower and the dollar higher.
There is also a legacy of excessive debt and a plan by central banks to control leverage and risk. This program restricts bank lending by using capital/asset ratios that bind and a stress test to enforce disciple. This approach doesn't just control; it also restricts lending and growth."
http://www.haver.com/comment/comment.html?c=150406A.html

Federales couldn't get them any day!
McEwen robbery highlights risks for miners in Mexico
McEwen Mining (NYSE:MUX) fell 5.6% in today's trade after yesterday's news that 900 kg of gold-bearing concentrate containing 7K oz. of gold - ~$8.4M in potential revenue - was stolen from its refinery in Mexico's Sinaloa state.Armed robberies of significant quantities of gold are not common, but operators in northern Mexico have been targeted in the past as the region is associated with cartels and gangs.The robbery raises concerns about other companies with exposure in northern Mexico, which include AGI, AUQ, CDE, PPP and TGD; among those with operations nearby are GG, PAAS, GPL, OTCPK:FNLPF and OTCQX:SMNPF.
.McEwen Mining Reports Armed Robbery at El Gallo 1 Mine
Tue April 7, 2015 5:04 PM
http://seekingalpha.com/pr/13063546-mcewen-mining-reports-armed-robbery-at-el-gallo-1-mine
From McEwen's CAUTION CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Risks and uncertainties that could cause results or future events to differ materially from current expectations expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements and information include, but are not limited to, existing insurance coverage and future availability of insurance, factors associated with fluctuations in the market price of precious metals, mining industry risks, political, economic, social and security risks associated with foreign operations,

FYI: It’s been about 40 years since John Bogle created investor-owned Vanguard Group and the first index fund. In the intervening decades, Vanguard has become the biggest mutual fund company in the world, and the humble index fund has become the centerpiece of the ETF revolution.
The implications are profound, as the 85-year-old legend made clear when ETF.com caught up with him in a recent telephone interview. In the first installment last week, Bogle extolled the fact that politicians and regulators are giving the pursuit of a unified fiduciary standard serious attention
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/bogle-investors-are-now-driving-ethics?nopaging=1

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1002624/000100262415000005/hsfstatutorysticker481-20154.htm
497 1 hsfstatutorysticker481-20154.htm
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated May 1, 2014
Effective June 1, 2015, the T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund will be closed to new investors. Accordingly, the prospectus is updated as follows.
Under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” in section 1, the following is added:
Subject to certain exceptions, the fund will be closed to new investors and new accounts after the close of the New York Stock Exchange on June 1, 2015. Investors who already hold shares of the fund after June 1, 2015, may continue to purchase additional shares.
Under “More Information About the Fund and Its Investment Risks” in section 3, the following is added:
Subject to certain exceptions, the fund will close to new investors and will no longer accept new accounts after the close of the New York Stock Exchange (normally 4 p.m. ET) on Monday, June 1, 2015.
Additional share purchases are permitted for investors holding shares of the fund directly with T. Rowe Price at the close of the New York Stock Exchange on June 1, 2015, as well as for participants in an employer-sponsored retirement plan where the fund serves as an investment option. New T. Rowe Price IRAs in the fund may be opened only through a direct rollover from an employer-sponsored retirement plan. Investors already holding shares through intermediaries generally will be able to purchase additional shares. If permitted by T. Rowe Price, fund shares may also be purchased by new investors in intermediary wrap, asset allocation, and other advisory programs when the fund is an existing investment in the intermediary’s program. If you are purchasing shares through an intermediary, check with the intermediary to confirm your eligibility to purchase shares of the fund.
The fund’s closure to new investors does not restrict existing shareholders from redeeming shares of the fund. However, any shareholders who redeem all fund shares in their account would not be permitted to purchase additional shares until the fund is reopened to new investors. Transferring ownership to another party or changing an account registration may also restrict the ability to purchase additional shares.
The fund reserves the right, when in the judgment of T. Rowe Price it is not adverse to the fund’s interests, to permit certain types of investors to open new accounts in the fund, to impose further restrictions, or to close the fund to any additional investments, all without prior notice.
The date of this supplement is April 8, 2015.
F114-041 4/8/2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(For Old Joe, Scott & others possessing limited vocabularies.)
Leaden: adjective
1. inertly heavy like lead; hard to lift or move:as
a leaden weight; leaden feet.
2.. dull, spiritless, or gloomy, as in mood or thought:
3. of a dull gray color:
4. oppressive; heavy:
5. sluggish; listless
6. of poor quality or little value.
7. made or consisting of lead.
Source: Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leaden

Uhhh ... no.
GPIOX was permitted and is permitted to invest 10-60%. GPGOX was permitted and is permitted to do 5-50%.
I've written president Eric Huefner to comment but, based on a side-by-side reading of the September 2014 language and the new March 2015 text, the change appears to be limited to two words: "are those" becomes "includes all" in reference to which countries are E or F.
Seems odd. I'll share what I hear back.
David

@Scott - about those EPD insider purchases (p.s. a huge holding of mine as well)
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150406005788/en/Enterprise-Products-Increases-Loading-Capacity-Houston-Ship#.VSVAbVw-BsM

Both GPIOX and GPGOX will now be permitted to invest from 10 to 60% of assets in emerging or frontier markets. The funds could use some goosing at this point in my opinion. Will this do the trick?
https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/MC5208/20150320/SUP_239409.PDF

"How we react after liftoff will depend on how the market reacts."
- FOMC vice chairman and president of Fed Bank of NY Bill Dudley
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-08/feds-bill-dudley-ignore-march-jobs-its-weather-live-feed
Market clearly not a priority in their decision making.
"but I'm pretty certain that they factor in a whole lot of variables other than that"
When your priority is to ramp asset prices in the hopes that that leads to a sustainable recovery and not another bubble/bust, wouldn't markets likely be a large focus?
Beyond that, whenever the market has gone down a few % in the last few years, a Fed governor inevitably pops up to soothe the markets. They're entirely reactionary to even smaller tantrums by the market.

FYI: If you have been putting off, or can’t bear the thought of, rebalancing your portfolio, here are three ways to make the process simpler and, perhaps, more tolerable.
Rebalancing your holdings—and, ideally, reducing the level of volatility in your savings—is frequently a difficult exercise. It’s hard to sell assets that have been performing well because we tend to assume they will continue to perform well. And it’s difficult to buy into assets that seem problematic. (Think: bonds, where yields are all but nonexistent.)
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2015/04/07/portfolio-rebalancing-for-cowards/tab/print/?mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Ftotalreturn%2F2015%2F04%2F07%2Fportfolio-rebalancing-for-cowards%2Ftab%2Fprint&fpid=2,121

...market hasn't even gone down 10-15% and already one of the Fed governors is talking asset purchases.

Scott, you do understand that the stock market isn't what the Fed is primarily concerned with, yes? ---- AJ

Fed governors appear whenever the market is down a few % to calm participants. If the market is not a primary concern, could have fooled me with how fast they pop out of the woodwork to assure markets that easy monetary policy continues.
Additionally, as Vert noted above: "Today we have a FED theory that producing a "wealth effect" (Bernanke's phrase), i.e. asset bubbles as the less charitable/gullible of us might put it, is the way to prosperity".
I'll suggest that the stock market is of enormous concern to the Fed, whether they say that outright or not.

...market hasn't even gone down 10-15% and already one of the Fed governors is talking asset purchases.

Scott, you do understand that the stock market isn't what the Fed is primarily concerned with, yes? ---- AJ

I'm not @scott but while you are correct AndyJ in your statement, I'm not sure the Fed knows this. We have seen the Fed react to poor performing stock markets during this whole debacle. The markets are not what they once were.

...market hasn't even gone down 10-15% and already one of the Fed governors is talking asset purchases.

Scott, you do understand that the stock market isn't what the Fed is primarily concerned with, yes? ---- AJ

Most of the folks I've spoken with talk about two sorts of expenses: "hard expenses" which represents money you've absolutely got to pay to other people, and "soft expenses" which is compensation to the manager for running the fund. I've been told that you need about $10 million in the portfolio to cover the hard expenses, even assuming a lean operation. To reach the "ongoing business operation" level of revenue, managers talk about $50-100 million; below that, it's somewhere between a hobby and a side business.
David

ETE is just wonderful. It's broken down into 6 separate entities (because it owns multiple underlying partnerships) and you have to fill out a K-1 for each.
If ETE hasn't done as well as it has and management hasn't been as good as it has (the CEO/chairman has bought something like $80 million in shares in the last several months) I'd be tossing it post haste. I'm hoping that it pulls a Kinder at some point and ultimately just takes all the parts and pieces under the parent/GP.
Speaking of insider pipeline co purchases, look at EPD:
Mar 13, 2015 WILLIAMS RANDA DUNCAN
Director
3,225,057 Indirect Purchase at $31.01 per share. 100,009,017
Mar 2, 2015 WILLIAMS RANDA DUNCAN
Director
1,498,055 Indirect Purchase at $34 per share. 50,933,870

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-trade-higher-1428409110
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-07/u-s-index-futures-are-little-changed-after-two-day-stocks-rally
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/07/us-markets-stocks-idUSKBN0MY0ZP20150407
WSJ Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures:
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

@MFO Members: The Fund only had $410,005 AUM, that's not going to cut it. You need a minimum of one million just to cover expenses.
Regards,
Ted

Time is probably the key here

A functioning government would be rather helpful. The idea of spewing money at any problem that comes along isn't really fixing anything - it's spending money to delay problems in the hopes that they will eventually be someone else's problem rather than fixing them. In this case, it's also to bail out left and right and ramp asset markets, which has lead to record amounts of stock buybacks, but not a whole lot in the way of factories built and other such economic activity.
Shareholders are happy until they're not, just as homeowners were happy until they weren't. Of course this is more popular than forcing rot from the system until the rot spreads and isn't.
It's not that I think things should be fixed in a hurry in the slightest, my mere request is that underlying problems actually be fixed and addressed in an attempt to create a recovery that is sustainable rather than in need of one QE drug after another.
QE and financial engineering is the definition of "wanting things fixed in a hurry" (no one wanted to address any issues in 2008, it was "how much money will it take to reboot us to a few years prior" - people wanted it fixed yesterday. Actually clearing the system of rot is not wanting things fixed in a hurry, it's wanting things fixed in a manner that is right and ultimately leads to a sustainable path.
The first one is taking a long time because it's not really fixing any underlying problems as much as creating another asset bubble. Only this time we're at the zero bound and the economy is faltering again, so we find ourselves in the new "QE" normal.
I said a couple of days ago, if the market gets rocky, just stay calm and continue to own assets because the Fed will inevitably start talking up something else. A couple of days later, you already have a Fed governor trial ballooning QE4 - and hey, the market didn't even have to go down 10-15% first.
I'll refer again to Scott Minerd's excellent "The Monetary Illusion". http://guggenheimpartners.com/perspectives/media/the-monetary-illusion

FYI: Outperforming the market is not the goal.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/04/06/the-real-point-of-active-investing?page_all=1