FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2016/09/september-1-2016/

What you're describing isn't a Roth conversion at all. It's a distribution (counting toward your RMD) and a separate contribution to a Roth. There's no connection whatsoever. Unlike a conversion, here you don't have to show that the Roth money came from a traditional IRA.
Often funds that close will say something about whether existing shareholders are allowed to open new accounts. For example, RPHYX prospectus:

Existing shareholders ... may purchase additional ... shares of the Fund through existing or new accounts ...

In contrast, PRWCX's prospectus says:

New T. Rowe Price IRAs in the fund may be opened only through a direct rollover from an employer-sponsored retirement plan. ...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 ...

So the ability to do a Roth conversion into a new Roth IRA account is at the discretion of T. Rowe Price. I've used both of the paths above (for another fund, not PWRCX) - a direct rollover from a 401(k), and a Roth conversion (at the discretion of TRP).
As you wrote, you'll have to ask Seafarer what its policy is.

I have PRWCX in my Traditional IRA at T.Rowe but not among my Roths. Guess I could convert just $1,000 (their minimum IRA account requirement) of PRWCX to a ROTH and than move as much other Roth money into it as I wanted? Heck, they might not even insist on $1,000.
At this time such move would be of little consequence. On the other hand, might be good to do it before they change their rules. From what I've read, there's no age limit for Roth conversions. Out of curiosity ... would a (taxable) conversion to Roth count towards one's RMD requirement? (suspect NO)

As I recall, TRP didn't require the $1K, but I didn't want to abuse the privilege, so I did a "full" $1K conversion.
Regarding RMD
:
a) You are required to take your RMD before you do any conversion for the year (i.e. the first money out of the IRA is considered the RMD);
b) If you put RMD money into a Roth, it is considered a new contribution, not a conversion; so you need to have earned income, otherwise it is an excess contribution, heavily penalized.

I've gone through these exercises with Vanguard and with T. Rowe Price. At Vanguard, no new account means no new account, even for in-kind transfers. T. Rowe Price is happy to move shares around for you, even if it means opening new accounts for a closed fund.

Thanks for the tip. I have PRWCX in my Traditional IRA at T.Rowe but not among my Roths. Guess I could convert just $1,000 (their minimum IRA account requirement) of PRWCX to a ROTH and than move as much other Roth money into it as I wanted? Heck, they might not even insist on $1,000.
At this time such move would be of little consequence. On the other hand, might be good to do it before they change their rules. From what I've read, there's no age limit for Roth conversions. Out of curiosity ... would a (taxable) conversion to Roth count towards one's RMD requirement? (suspect NO)

I also own SFGIX, since 2012. Very pleased. It is my only EM equity fund.

Same here. I've owned it for a few years and it's my only EM fund.

"If a shareholder closes an account in the Fund due to redemption or exchange, the shareholder will no longer be able to make additional investments in the Fund."
If I have two accounts in the fund (say an IRA and a taxable account) and I close the taxable account, I should still be able to add investments to the IRA - even though I was a shareholder who closed an account.
The more interesting question is whether I could take then a distribution in kind from that IRA and open up a new taxable account with those shares. Likewise, could I do a Roth conversion in kind, if I originally had no Seafarer Roth IRA?
These are not merely hypotheticals. I've gone through these exercises with Vanguard and with T. Rowe Price. At Vanguard, no new account means no new account, even for in-kind transfers. T. Rowe Price is happy to move shares around for you, even if it means opening new accounts for a closed fund.
I've even had problems (ultimately resolved) converting from investor shares to institutional shares in a third family's closed fund. Also relevant here, since Seafarer just dropped the min on its institutional class shares from $100K to $25K.

The closing was hidden in the Summary Prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834416017861/fp0021369_497k.htm
Excerpt:
Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares
The Fund offers two classes of shares, an Investor Class and an Institutional Class, each of which is offered by this Prospectus. The minimum initial investment for the Investor Class is $2,500 for all accounts, except that the minimum initial investment is $1,000 for retirement and education savings accounts and $1,500 for automatic investment plan accounts. The minimum initial investment for the Institutional Class is $25,000 for all accounts. Investors generally may meet the minimum initial investment for the Institutional Class by aggregating multiple accounts within the Fund. If a shareholder invests in the Fund through a financial adviser or intermediary, the minimum initial investment for the Institutional Class may be met if that financial adviser or intermediary aggregates investments of multiple clients to meet the minimum. The minimum investment for subsequent purchases is $100 for both share classes.
Effective immediately after market closing on September 30, 2016, the Fund will close to most new investors. The Fund will be available for purchase only by the following investors:
· Existing shareholders of the Fund;
· Financial advisors, consultants and discretionary programs with existing clients in the Fund (i.e., they can continue to add new clients in the Fund);
· Retirement plans or platforms with participants who currently invest in the Fund;
· Model-based programs with existing accounts in the Fund; and
· Employees of Seafarer and their families.
Please note that some intermediaries may not be able to accommodate the conditions set out above.
If a shareholder closes an account in the Fund due to redemption or exchange, the shareholder will no longer be able to make additional investments in the Fund.
The Fund reserves the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund, or limit inflows into the Fund, and delegates such authority to Seafarer.

@MFO Members: For those of you who missed Chuck Jaffe's interview of Andrew Foster, on Auguat 25. 2016.
Regards,
Ted
Scroll & Click On Download)
http://moneylifeshow.com/highlights.asp

I also own SFGIX, since 2012. Very pleased. It is my only EM equity fund.

As per VintageFreak post, given DPIEX 10-year annualized returns of 1.97%, what would be compelling reasons to consider investing in it?

Both share classes, on September 30. It's a soft-close and it's one of several strategies for flow control that Mr. Foster had been noodling over.
Seafarer hit $1.5 billion, which was at the lower end of the possible-closure range, but flows into EM equities generally are picking up which might have made this seem the opportune moment.
For what that's worth,
David

ICYMI
http://www.seafarerfunds.com/message-to-shareholders/2016/08/31/

DPIEX is beyond limit for most investors - the minimum investment is $1 M and it has no investor class with smaller initial investment.

BobC and VF each highlight interesting questions, as there are at least two different perspectives on each of their issues.
What is the responsibility of a corporation? Corporations owe their legal existence (shielding shareholders from personal liability, etc.) to the state, and as such have traditionally been regarding as having some public obligations. Over the past 30 years or so, that perspective has shifted toward viewing corporations as answerable solely to their shareholders.
The two perspectives are not entirely incompatible, as VF suggests by mentioning an obligation to do right by their employees. Either because that's part of an implicit agreement with the state that grants corporations legal status, or because companies that treat their employees well tend to be more profitable and thus benefit their shareholders.
Either way, there is a third leg to this stool - the customers. Corporations have an obligation to do right by them as well.
Which brings us to spin - a question applicable to all media companies, not just Morningstar. There is one line of thinking (implicit in BobC's comment) that all publishers pander - so let's give up on any pretense of objectivity. You see this in some press internationally, and it was widespread in the US a century ago.
The pendulum may be swinging back that way. Not just Fox News, but CNN where the "talent" has to add disclaimers on air that they are still on outside payroll.
But that doesn't mean objectivity is a fool's errand. Some publishers build firewalls between content and advertising departments. Never 100% effective (IMHO), they nevertheless do (or at least can do) a good job in keeping the content fairly objective.
M*'s firewall: http://discuss.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/251837.aspx
(I readily acknowledge that M*'s 2010 statement that it was investing in its infrastructure undermines its credibility regarding its firewall.)

Reminds one of GoldmanSachs "doing God's work" statement........... :)
http://www.businessinsider.com/lloyd-blankfein-says-he-is-doing-gods-work-2009-11

Hi @jerry
I recall the choices for the TIAA Michigan 529 were limited 10+ years ago and the fees were much higher for a direct purchase (which we use, no advisor stuff).
I checked MI 529 today and find the fees are now competitive.
NOTE: Much has changed during the past 10 years in the 529 marketplace. I recall quite a few vendor changes in numerous state plans; as well as significant fee reductions.
MICH 529 TIAA This links to multi-fund choices, with single fund choices clickable on the right side page edge. The multi-funds (I read) are funds of funds. These appear to be suitable enough for most folks.
UTAH 529 plan choices, individual selections This is the "build your own" list. The recent adds of the DFA funds have "high" expenses, relative to the Vanguard choices.
'Course the bugger with any of the choices are the restrictions on changing the investment choices; which, until 2015 was limited to 1 switch per calendar year and is now 2 allocation changes each year. This is now sufficient, IMHO.
Anyhoo..........Utah's plan was more appealing to us a number of years ago, and still is; and we find no need to transfer from this into Michigan's current offering. Don't know that I implied a negative towards TIAA, just not the best choice at the time and wouldn't likely be the choice today.
K...........back to house painting here.
Regards,
Catch

"Choose all index funds and look at those that are not doing well. buy a chunk......."
VintageFreak, which are those index funds that are not doing well, that you would buy now?
"wait to buy next chunk. and next. and next"
How long would you wait, and what are you waiting for/looking for?

What I meant was look at sectors that are out of favor now. If you are looking to increase your a location to that part of market go with corresponding index fund. You are not to compare index funds against each other like to compRe active funds. Needless to say don't buy index fuds from CrookedRUs funds. Stick with vanguRd,fido,trp,etc

FYI: The Securities and Exchange Commission has barred Logos Wealth Advisors founder Paul Mata and his fund manager for fraudulently raising more than $14 million from investors
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160831/FREE/160839978?template=printart

Regarding bond funds - Vanguard funds will always merit consideration, because for bond funds the correlation between cost and performance is quite strong. Why another bond fund? Because one rarely gets an actively managed bond fund at this low a cost and this small a size.
What makes me queasy about the fund (at least going by the description) is that this sounds like what Vanguard did with its total bond index fund in 2002 (when it managed to underperform its benchmark by about 1%). See this old M* thread:
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/69530.aspx
Regarding the equity funds - M* star ratings provide objective summaries of past (risk adjusted) past performance. 4* and 5* performances may not indicate future results, but they do say that these funds have done well relative to their peers. HRSRX (4*), MVSGX(4*), DPIEX (5*), WCMRX (5*). Likewise, these funds' returns (not risk adjusted) over 3, 5, and 10 years are all above average (4) or high (5).

Hi Guys,
As General Anthony McAulife famous said in the 1944 Battle of Bastogne "Nuts". Short but on target.
I felt the same way after initially replying to the question on this post. I said "Immediately" without proper research before responding. I gave a gut reaction and that's not good investment policy. So I did a little research, and fortunately it confirmed my seat-of-the-pants recommendation.
Here is a Link to a study by a reputable outfit that yields a confirmatory conclusion:
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/Does-Market-Timing-Work
Sorry for my casual initial reply. Alex, I hope you decide quickly. The time for information gathering has past and a decision is waiting. Nobody can predict market turning points.
Best Wishes.