It appears that the key words were "IF ECONOMY FALTERED". With respect to "theories of insanity", the word "theories" is at least correct, as we are still seeing where this particular theory will take us. We do know, though, where the Austrian/University of Chicago Business School theories took us in 1929.

"is at least correct, as we are still seeing where this particular theory will take us."
I tend to wonder if devotees of current economic theory would ever admit that the results are lackluster considering the sheer size and duration of easy monetary policy this time.
The fact that there is even the mere discussion of another round of asset purchases after three rounds and several years of easy monetary policy - is laughable, although particularly laughable if we get QE 4 is the notion that "we are still seeing where this is going." I tend to think that something has "worked" when you don't need another and another and another of it.
If "we are still seeing where this is going" after QE4, then those saying that I think do not care to truly admit where this is all going. At what point do we all get to see where this is going, QE5? QE10?
Additionally, at some point "we are still seeing" becomes "have seen" unless you believe that, much like many devotees of current monetary policy, it "wasn't enough" - "wasn't enough money", "wasn't enough time", etc. Can something ever be wrong if you just keep giving it more and more time to be right? Can something be wrong if every time the problem was that "there just wasn't enough" of it? Theoretically we can be at this forever if the problem every time was that "it needs more time" and there "wasn't enough" and the people behind it never admit that it isn't creating a sustainable result.
Problems are transitory, goalposts (it's not wrong because we're still seeing where it's going after several years..., we need another QE because the last one just "wasn't enough" AGAIN....) moved when they don't fit the desired result, etc.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1396092/000120928615000184/e1618.htm
497 1 e1618.htm
LEADSMAN CAPITAL STRATEGIC INCOME FUND
Supplement dated April 7, 2015
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
each dated September 15, 2014
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of World Funds Trust (the “Trust”) has approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) relating to the Leadsman Capital Strategic Income Fund (the “Fund”), effective April 7, 2015. Leadsman Capital LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”), has recommended to the Board to approve the Plan based on its representations of its inability to market the Fund and the Adviser’s indication that it does not desire to continue to support the Fund. As a result, the Board has concluded that it is in the best interest of the Fund’s shareholders to liquidate the Fund.
In connection with the proposed liquidation and dissolution of the Fund called for by the Plan, the Board has directed the Trust’s principal underwriter to cease offering shares of the Fund immediately as of the date of this Supplement. Shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and distributions in the Fund or redeem their shares until the liquidation.
It is anticipated that the Fund will liquidate on or about April 7, 2015. Any remaining shareholders on the date of liquidation will receive a distribution of their remaining investment value in full liquidation of the Fund. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund toll-free at 1.800.673.0550.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of any redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
This Supplement, and the existing Prospectus dated September 15, 2014, provide relevant
information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the
Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated September 15, 2014 have
been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference,
and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1.800.673.0550.

Minneapolis Fed Gov on QE4: "KOCHERLAKOTA: THERE IS EVEN A THEORETICAL ARGUMENT TO BE MADE FOR MAKING ASSET PURCHASES NOW IF ECONOMY FALTERED"
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/kocherlakota-goes-bullard-retard-says-qe4-theoretically-warranted)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Getting ready for yet another spin into Einstein's theory of insanity. I love how quickly this was uttered - market hasn't even gone down 10-15% and already one of the Fed governors is talking asset purchases.

Yes. Fidelity executes "market price" transactions in seconds, thus one can make a second transaction right away. Other brokerages work the same manner.
Bear in mind that how fast the trade is really depends on the trading volume of that day. There needs to be a seller for every buyer to complete this trade. Heavily traded indeces trade readily without issues. Thinly traded securities, however, often have wider spreads, and harder to trade on market price. Personally I stay away from these thinly traded securities.

Most transactions for me are right when I hit the button. That said, I have encountered thinly traded stocks (especially a few foreign stocks) where it's taken 5-10-15 minutes or more.

Hmmm ... it delivers a 7.4% yield with a 6.45% total return, annualized over five years. Negative alpha and high beta against its "best fit" index over the past three years; Morningstar doesn't provide the five-year best fit data.
In a move that only Morningstar could love, they rate it as "high risk" within its category; then note that the category holds a total of four funds.
David

FYI: - The Federal Reserve should not raise interest rates until the second half of 2016 to allow the labor market to continue to strengthen, said Narayana Kocherlakota, the president of Minneapolis district branch of the U.S. central bank, on Tuesday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-fed-rate-hike-needed-until-second-half-of-2016-kocherlakota-2015-04-07/print
(Last week someone offered to bet me on a rate increase this year. I offered a Chicago Hot Dog, or a slice of Chicago's Famous Deep Dish Pizza. Would the person who did this please step foward, I want to increase the bet.)

@Paul Hope this is some help.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/emergingmarketsdaily/2015/04/06/emerging-market-equity-funds-5th-week-of-outflows/

@catch22: Thanks !!!
Regards,
Ted
April 6, 2015:
Germany’s DAX 39 Closed
France’s CAC 40 Closed
The U.K.’s FTSE 100 Closed
Italy’s FTSE MIB Closed
Spain’s IBEX 35 Closed
Greece’s Athex Composite Closed
Portugal’s PSI 20 Closed
Belgium’s BEL 20 Closed
Netherlands’s AEX Closed
Denmark’s OMX 20 Closed
Norway’s OBX Closed
Sweden’s OMX 30 Closed

FYI: If the market can’t trade U.S. stocks on the day of a bad jobs report, does it make a sound? The U.S. stock market rallied on Monday and bond prices fell. That’s precisely the the opposite of what Wall Street expected after Friday’s dismal jobs report. U.S. equities exchanges were quiet for Good Friday, and futures pointed to a sour start early on Monday ahead of the opening bell.
Not so! Turns out that a flagging U.S. economy is good for risky assets, the implication being that the Federal Reserve must keep tethers on interest rates for longer. Or maybe trading desks are still underpopulated after holidays, or otherwise distracted by thawing weather or the start to the Big League baseball season. Volumes on Monday were light
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/04/06/etf-market-vital-signs-april-6-good-news-for-people-who-love-bad-news/tab/print/

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-fall-amid-weak-jobs-report-1428322938
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-05/u-s-stock-futures-maintain-slide-amid-jobs-data-gold-rallies
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/06/us-markets-stocks-idUSKBN0MX0XB20150406
MarketWatch Slant:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-futures-tumble-after-jobs-data-triggers-corporate-profit-worries-2015-04-06/print
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

Easy for Me: Buy Shares in Profitable, Growing U.S. companies when I was a young man and could afford to buy a few shares every week... result would be:
Can you spell multi-millionaire by 40, 50, well before 60...but that's past History, but not for young people today....tap one on the shoulder and tell Him/Her

FYI: In a few weeks, two mutual funds that I have owned for at least 20 years will no longer be part of my portfolio.
That’s by circumstance, not by choice, but it leaves me with questions to answer and decisions to make. Moreover, even if you never face the same challenges, the exercise I must now go through will help you update, refresh and refocus your portfolio.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/which-investments-would-you-buy-if-you-had-to-do-it-all-over-again-2015-04-06/print

FYI: (Click On Article At Top Of Google Search)
Investors could be easily dazzled by the current stars of the stock market and tempted to ditch boring index funds for a piece of the action.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+Trap+of+Trying+to+Pick+Individual+Stocks++wsj&oq=The+Trap+of+Trying+to+Pick+Individual+Stocks++wsj&gs_l=hp.3...6315.9847.0.10929.6.6.0.0.0.0.86.397.6.6.0.msedr...0...1c.1.64.hp..5.1.85.CWNDNAOJmcM

Chip, I seem to be getting logged off a lot this evening. Had to sign back in a couple times within 15-20 minutes. Too soon to know if this will become a persistent problem.
As for ice cream, ... I think Ted would enjoy the "Bone Morrow with Smoked Cherries" flavor.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/05/24/fifteen-funkiest-ice-cream-flavors-on-earth/

My apologies - normally I'm more careful about a fund's status, especially when it is described as "limited" by M*. As John speculated, it has a soft close for accounts through third parties. You can find that information on the AC website by looking at the fund's prospectus there:
http://prospectus.americancentury.com/summary.asp?doctype=pros&clientid=amercentll&fundid=025076654
Follow the link in the prospectus to "Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares":

As of November 1, 2013, the fund will generally be 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.

Maybe I was thinking of Janus' policy - they no longer sell funds directly to new investors (these would be 'D' shares); you have to go through intermediaries (and purchase their traditional 'T' shares). (But even there, I believe that if you're an existing direct shareholder, you can open investments in other funds directly through Janus.)

Hi Guys,
From my perspective, John Bogle is an investment folk hero of legendary size.
He did not make some minor adjustments to an industry; he transformed it. Vanguard is now the largest mutual fund entity in the US, and Bogle founded it 4 decades ago to initiate the transformation. Vanguard is very appropriately named; it is “the forefront of an action or movement” according to the dictionary.
Bogle lifted the Bell Jar that separated the investing elites on the inside from the general population on the outside. From that general population, he has earned the nickname “Saint Jack”.
He has very consistently recommended an extremely simplified portfolio for the rookie, relatively uninformed investor. He advocates a balanced equity-bond mix using Index products (minimally only two) to contain costs. Few academics would challenge him.
Does Bogle precisely follow this simplified approach? No! His advanced age and his huge wealth prompt him to diverge somewhat into a more complex construction. I adhere to that same divergence for very similar reasons. What exactly does Bogle do? Here is a slightly dated Link that provides some answers titled “Me and My Money”:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-column-taylor-bogle-idUSBRE88A0LI20120911
I find his commitment to Wellington Management rather charming. He was fired by that outfit in 1974 for a bad decision (something familiar to all of us). That event encouraged his formation of Vanguard and the concept of passive mutual fund products. It is likely that I have owned Wellington almost as long as Saint Jack. Maybe not quite as long.
I surely do not agree with all of Bogle’s investing wisdom (like his often rejection of emerging markets), but I still respect and honor the man for his unsurpassed accomplishments. He is a national treasure.
His uniqueness in the pantheon of the mutual fund industry might be better understood with a more recent Bloomberg interview. Here is that Link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-11/is-there-a-next-jack-bogle-not-if-you-ask-jack-bogle
Enjoy.
Best Regards.

There's a another upgrade available for the Vanilla Forum software. This upgrade includes some security patches and bug fixes, so we don't want to delay in applying it. Accipiter will be on standby tomorrow around 11am Eastern, while I perform the upgrade. The discussion board may be down for a few minutes while we're doing that.
Thanks for your patience, as always.

FYI: There are no conclusive definitions of an asset class or definitive lists of asset classes, but asset allocation depends on how one chooses to define asset classes that collectively form the opportunity set. A company owned by Morningstar called Ibbotson Associates together with PIMCO pulled together some research on the topic that I think is interesting. They present a framework based on three super asset classes:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etftrends.com/2015/04/indexology-commodities-to-be-or-not-to-be-grown/

JMCVX is a conservative (M* rates it low risk), broadly diversified (almost 100 securities) fund that sits on the value/blend border (oscillating from year to year), tending toward large cap. It is not focused on midcap value, it just averages out that way.
How much of this is important to you in seeking a replacement? FSMVX matches most attributes - its portfolio leans a bit more toward large cap, and a bit more toward value, but both in minor ways. More significant is that its risk is rated average - still not a very risky fund.
VASVX is also slightly more value oriented, though with an average market cap matching JMCVX. M* rates its risk as below average - not quite as low as JMCVX, but in the "next" ballpark. Mona is correct that Vanguard recently added Penza Investment Management recently, but Donald G. Smith and Richard L Greenberg (of Donald Smith & Co.) came on board a decade ago, just three years after Mark Giambrone.
If you want to get a sense of how Barrow/Giambrone work with Penza and his team, you might look at American Beacon Mid Cap Value (AMPAX). From the fund inception until 2014, these two teams were responsible for the day-to-day management of that fund. ISTM that this is a respectable, though not awe inspiring fund - good risk/return, similar attributes to JMCVX, average risk and a bit pricy (compared with the other funds mentioned). Not a fund I'd look at to purchase, but one to see how these teams work together in a co-managed fund.
HIMVX isn't as close a match as the other funds. Its risk is higher (above average per M*) which IMHO goes along with a deep value leaning (vs. sitting on the value/blend line as do the other funds). On the other hand, it has somewhat more securities in its portfolio (about 175). Overall, it gives a bit greater variety in company cap sizes, and a bit less along the value/growth axis. While it has done well in the past few years (with markets soaring), its ten year record is almost identical to AMPAX - and management has been pretty stable for both funds over that period of time (making the comparison valid). Another indicator that the fund is more risky/volatile than the others - better in good times, worse in bad ones.
All of this gets me back to the question - what are you looking for in a replacement? If you're looking for a fund that spans a broad swath of companies, then a fund narrowly focused on mid cap value, whether active or index like VOE/VMVAX isn't going to do it.
Are you willing to look outside of Fidelity, or are you at least open to the idea of doing a move all at once (to facilitate purchasing TF funds at Fidelity)? In that case, you might also consider DHMIX (TF at Fidelity, more compact portfolio, leaning more toward small cap), or VETAX (NTF at Schwab, and a somewhat more focused market cap range, though not nearly as narrow as VOE/VMVAX).
Or if all you're looking for is a better fund, nominally labeled MCV, you might even look at FLPSX. A bit of a contrarian play in the sense that the fund is nearly a world fund, and the US market has been doing much better over the past few years.

There are theoretical numbers and actual numbers. M* publishes both on a fund's expenses page, but uses the actual on a fund's summary page.
By "actual" I mean actual dollars and percentages spent by the fund, as reported in its latest (semi)annual report. By "theoretical" I mean the prospective expenses as speculated by its prospectus.
It is worth noting that all the figures incorporate fee waivers. So both the "actual" ER of 1.4% and the "theoretical" ER of 1.25% are subsidized numbers. The "true" "theoretical" ER (per prospectus) is 1.66%.
The lower number (1.25% vs. the older 1.4%) going forward is a result of a reduced cap put into place by Seafarer last Sept 1. It does not necessarily represent a reduction in "true" expenses. On the other hand, Seafarer did reduce its declared management fees by 10 basis points at that same time - that represents a true reduction in ER.