CIPMX can be bought through Scottrade for a minimum initial investment of $100.00, no T/F.

Hi Guys,
"The future is uncertain, so investors should always think in terms of probabilities, never guarantees. What this data tells me is that the longer your time horizon, the higher your probability of seeing a gain in the stock market."
That's not me writing. It's a quote from an article by Ben Carlson. Here is the Link to that article that summarizes market returns winning statistics:
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/11/playing-the-probabilities/
Not much has changed statistically since this article was published. It's a simple matter of just playing the odds. That's always a good strategy.
The equity marketplace is up 54% of the time on a daily basis. It is up 74% of the time annually. As the investment timeframe expands, the winning statistics keep increasing. In the investment world, time is your ally. Once again simplicity trumps complexity.
Best Wishes

VintageFreak
You mention the possibility of the fund liquidating, however the fund webpage is indicating about $1.5 billion in assets, do you see any indication that liquidation is being considered.
Thanks

FYI: Any additional comment here might be superfluous because the stories I’m about to share speak for themselves.
Convincing yourself that you need a perfect answer for market outcomes with a probability of under 5% of occurring is a recipe for sloppy portfolios and big losses. Take a look for yourself…
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/09/05/when-the-hedge-is-worse-than-the-thing-being-hedged/
Black Swan Article For Free:
https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_201709051978/a-decade-after-crisis-investors-have-stopped-hunting-for-black-swans.html

FYI: EVERY YEAR, MANY SENIORS needlessly incur hefty penalties or overpay their taxes. The reason: They don’t understand the strict rules that govern removing money from their tax-deferred retirement accounts.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.humbledollar.com/2017/09/late-thatll-cost-50/

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-04/safe-havens-maintain-gains-as-korea-threats-linger-markets-wrap
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-falls-more-than-1-percent-on-rising-north-korea-worries-idUSKCN1BG1LB
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-stocks-set-for-downbeat-open-as-north-korea-standoff-intensifies-2017-09-05/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-down-but-nasdaq-shows-a-bullish-trait-3-reasons-why-apple-is-fine/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/05/us-stocks-north-korea-economy.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS_ASOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-09-05/your-evening-briefing-pay-gaps-daca-and-irma
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Negative
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Hi Guys,
KISS (keep it simple, stupid) wins again! Simplicity has many advantages over complexity, especially in the investment world. Many of the 36 investment golden rules summarized in Ted's recent reference to a Ben Carlson article hint that simple wins over complex without explicitly saying so. For your convenience, here is the Link to the article that Ted posted:
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2017/09/36-obvious-investment-truths/
Once again Ted, thank you for this useful reminder. I try, sometimes with success, but not always, to apply these terrific guidelines. Great stuff!
There are scores of articles and papers that advocate the KISS approach. Here is a Link to just one from many dozen choices:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-it-comes-to-investing-it-pays-to-keep-it-simple-2015-11-11
Enjoy and prosper by limiting your effort. That's typically not a winning strategy in many other business adventures.
Best Wishes

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890540/000113542817000918/champlainmc-497.txt
DOCUMENT>
497
1
champlainmc-497.txt
THE ADVISORS' INNER CIRCLE FUND II
CHAMPLAIN MID CAP FUND (THE "FUND")
ADVISOR SHARES (CIPMX)
INSTITUTIONAL SHARES (CIPIX)
SUPPLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (THE "SAI") DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2016
THIS SUPPLEMENT PROVIDES NEW AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND THAT CONTAINED
IN THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND SAI, AND SHOULD BE READ IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUMMARY PROPSECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND SAI.
Effective October 1, 2017, the Fund will be closed to new investors. As of
October 1, 2017, shares of the Fund may be purchased only by existing fund
shareholders, qualified retirement plans and fee-based advisory programs with
centralized investment discretion that have selected the Fund as an investment
option prior to October 1, 2017. The Fund reserves the right to permit
additional investments on a case-by-case basis as deemed appropriate by and in
the sole discretion of Champlain Investment Partners, LLC, the Fund's adviser
(the "Adviser").
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
CSC-SK-013-0100

If you wanted to move money from an ETF to a mutual fund, under T+3 you had to wait a couple of days to buy the mutual fund (or buy on margin). That's because the proceeds from the ETF weren't available for three business days, but you had to have the money for the mutual fund purchase available just one day after you place the order.
So you were out of the market for two days (at least I think I got the arithmetic right). Now with T+2, you can place your mutual fund order a day sooner.
Note that when purchased through a broker, most (but not all) mutual funds settle T+1.

@Maurice That's nice. The problem is Clinton wasn't even a candidate in 2014, so why are you posting that data? And why do you carefully ignore the simple fact that in the 2016 election cycle $605.8 million was spent by conservative Super Pacs and $444 million spent by liberal ones, which is also on the same 2016 Open Secrets page? You said: "You know that the Democrats have taken more advantage of PAC money than Republicans." It's not true.
And by the way Super Pacs don't even include "dark money" political spending from 501c non-profit groups where the donors' names aren't disclosed. That money is overwhelmingly conservative Republican: https://opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U
In 2016 $140.5 million came from conservative 501c's versus 41.3 million from liberal ones. Oh and in 2014, that number was $126.4 million conservative versus $37.8million liberal.
https://opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U

@Maurice I already posted the facts via OpenSecrets. You just don't care about them. It's pretty funny that you would post old data from 2014 instead of 2016. Nice try.

FYI: It’s never been easier for investors to add exposure to alternative investments into their portfolios.
Liquid alternatives offering exposure to hedge-fund strategies and nontraditional asset classes through a mutual fund or ETF wrapper are becoming increasingly popular among investors looking to increase diversification at a time when equity valuations are high and fixed-income yields are low.
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that alternatives will improve returns or shield your portfolio in a down market.
Regards,
Ted
https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/09/04/why-alternative-investments-are-bad-for-your-portfolio/

Settlement for Dummies (like me).
"A settlement period is the period of time between the settlement date and the transaction date that is allotted to the parties of a transaction to satisfy the transaction's obligations. The buyer must make payment within the settlement period, while the seller must deliver the purchased security within this period. For certificates of deposit and commercial paper, the transaction must be settled on the same day; for U.S. treasuries, it is the next day (T+1). Forex transactions are settled two days after (T+2"
The fuller article alludes the recent changes (shortened period) - which apparently were under study but hadn't yet been finalized. Yikes - I had assumed you needed cash on hand, assets convertible to cash (like fund shares) or an established line of credit to trade securities. Apparently not so.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/settlement_period.asp

@MFO Members; Josh Brown's thoughts on MAGA !
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/09/01/maga-muppet-bait/

FYI: U.S. stocks were poised to open lower on Tuesday, as investors returned from a long weekend and got their first chance to respond to the heightened tensions between the West and North Korea.
Regards,
Ted
U.S.: (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-stocks-set-for-downbeat-open-as-north-korea-standoff-intensifies-2017-09-05/print
U.S.: (IBD)
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/these-2-top-rated-techs-put-w-in-winning-bases-sp-500-futures/
Europe: (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/european-stocks-push-higher-as-deal-news-eclipses-north-korea-worries-2017-09-05/print
Europe: (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/europe-stocks/european-shares-up-led-by-financials-health-stocks-aveva-gains-on-schneider-deal-idUSL8N1LM10O
Europe: (CNBC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/05/europe-markets-ftse-cac-dax-north-korea-tensions-nafta.html
Europe-Asia: (Bloomberg)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-04/safe-havens-maintain-gains-as-korea-threats-linger-markets-wrap
Asia: (MarketWtch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wary-investors-weigh-on-asian-markets-after-north-korean-nuclear-test-2017-09-03/print
Asia: (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/japan-stocks-close/nikkei-falls-to-1-week-lows-as-north-korea-tensions-persist-idUSL4N1LM2FQ
Asia: (CNBC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/04/asia-markets-focus-on-north-korea-gold-yen-china-caixin-services-pmi.html
Current Futures: (Negative)
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Thanks OJ. Had a feeling I was overlooking something. It's becoming clearer. Somehow had the impression that fund trades executed through a third party (i.e. broker) took an extra day to go through. And that the next day's price applies. However, the article I linked below clears that up. I was mostly wrong - though some brokerages have a 2 PM cutoff.
Found your link highly interesting. Not sure why it takes 2-3 days for some trades to settle. It's a world I'm not acquainted with. Never desired to own individual stocks. Perhaps a fear that I might become "consumed" by the process and trade frequently to my detriment. I'll stick with what I know (a recurrent theme in another thread tonight).
From Investopedia: Mutual fund shares are highly liquid. They can be bought or sold (redeemed) on any day that the markets are open. Whether working through a representative (such as an advisor) or directly through the fund company, an order can be placed to buy or redeem shares and it will be executed at the next available net asset value (NAV), which is calculated after the market close each trading day. Some brokerages and fund companies require orders be placed earlier than the market close (2 p.m. Eastern Time), while others allow same day execution right up to the market close.
Settlement for mutual fund transactions varies from one to three days, depending upon the type of fund.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/110615/when-are-mutual-fund-orders-executed.asp

This is regulatory and "should" apply to everyone at every broker. I thought mutual funds already settled faster so this wouldn't affect them, but the email I received mentions them so maybe something is changing. I don't buy without cash on hand so I don't think it matters for me but could for some people. The email I received from E*TRADE said basically the same thing as the one we both received from Fidelity:
We're writing to make sure you know about an important upcoming change in U.S. securities markets.
What’s changing
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in cooperation with the financial services industry, is shortening the trade settlement period for many types of securities from three business days to two. This new rule is designed to increase efficiency and reduce risk. Products affected by the change include stocks, corporate bonds, municipal bonds, ETFs, and mutual funds, among others.
NO ACTION IS REQUIRED FROM YOU. The shortened settlement period will take effect automatically on Tuesday, September 5, 2017.
What this means to you
If you sell a security, you’ll receive cash one day sooner
If you buy a security, it will be delivered one day sooner
If you are using margin, purchases will create a settled debit balance one day sooner and selling will decrease your settled debit balance one day sooner
You will have one less day to execute a tax-lot swap

@Maurice

You know that the Democrats have taken more advantage of PAC money than Republicans.

No, they haven't:
https://opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&chrt=V&disp=O&type=S
https://opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S

@MSF I think members of the House and Senate would have more of an impact on the local and state level and how federal contract dollars might be directed towards campaign contributors because of their sway. Regarding the McDonnell case, the defense made specific reference to Citizens United as a rationalization for McDonnell's behavior:

Insisting that the product would have generated jobs in Virginia, Mr. McDonnell testified that he was merely extending himself as he would have on behalf of any other constituent and that he never agreed to “put a thumb on the scales of any government decision.” His lawyers invoked the Supreme Court’s holding in the Citizens United campaign finance case that “ingratiation and access” do not constitute corruption.

But I agree with you that the corporate influence problem precedes Citizens United, although the ruling greatly exacerbated that influence. Good link/article by the way.
@Maurice More George Soros as the world's boogeyman? It's a tiresome trope. Yes, Soros gives to elections, but nowhere near what the conservative Koch brothers do:
fortune.com/2017/01/29/koch-political-network-spending/
But besides that, what makes you think I believe any major financial gifts to any politicians are acceptable? I don't. But here is a fund expressly designed to reward those companies seeking to buy influence with Republican politicians with investor dollars. There is no equivalent on the Democratic side.

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling basically legalized graft and influence peddling:
latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-mcdonnell-corruption-20160627-snap-story.html

I'm sure that George Soros and Hillary Clinton were as happy as one over the USSC ruling referenced above.

I agree with Lewis that individual company influence at the state/local level is likely more potent; I had been thinking more in terms of national influence (see thread subject). I also agree with Maurice that this fund is a gimmick.
The case in the article cited and George Soros (as contributor) do not depend on Citizens United. The underlying problem is that the Supreme Court said decades ago that money was equivalent to speech. Citizens United merely extended that idea to companies and such. Regarding corporations as people (or at least sharing certain rights with people - see Hobby Lobby), it follows that corporations, like "other" people, can spend whatever they wanted on a candidate in their exercise of "free" (there's an irony for you) speech.
Individuals have been able to throw money at candidates, well, freely, for many years.
The Hill (2016), Happy birthday to the case that was even worse than Citizens United