Hi Sven,
I too have access to Bill Sharpe's Financial Engines website. I elected not to mention it because of its likely limited access for many MFOers.
I have a true anecdotal story involving Sharpe and me. In the early 1990s I was planning retirement and consulted with advisors asking for Monte Carlo analyses to support their opinions. They thought I was nuts.
So I was motivated to do my own programming. I ran into some stumbling blocks and sought help from the academic world. Professor Sharp rescued me with great advice on Monte Carlo issues and Gene Fama sent me tons of data. Both professors were extremely generous, and both were friendly. It never hurts to ask for help.
I don't understand the reluctance of some MFOers to even explore the potential benefits that Monte Carlo offers. Open mindedness when investing is an essential element to enhance the odds of success.
Many thanks for your contribution.
Best Wishes.

This has been a rough week on bond funds around the globe this week. Majority of them has lost 1% or more. Think they will rebound in next few weeks.
Few fared better (mostly with short duration):
River Park short term high yield, 0.1% loss
T. Rowe Price High Yield bond, 0.5% loss
Osterweis Strategic Income, 0% loss
Matthew Asia Strategic Income, 0.5 loss
Metropolitan West Unconstrained, 0.4% loss
Metropolitan West Ultra short bond, 0% loss
Vanguard Short Term Investment grade bond, 0.4% loss
Vanguard short Term bond index, 0.4 loss

Hi rjb112,
Thank you for asking. You are the first person on MFO to specifically ask for a few Monte Carlo code addresses. Here are three that offer different user options.
My favorite because of its flexibility for my needs is from Flexible Retirement Planner. Here is a Link:
http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/wp/
The code I used for these submittals is from the Portfolio Visualizer website. It runs on my I-Pad and also offers some nifty other investor tools. Here is the Link:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
A third source that is the easiest input, but has the fewest user options is from MoneyChimp. This code requires that you estimate the mean and standard deviation returns from your pre- and post-retirement portfolios. Here is the Link:
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/montecarlo.htm
My primary purpose for participating on the MFO Discussion Board is to be helpful to mutual fund investors. I’m way beyond salvation myself. So I’m extremely pleased that you requested this information. No trouble whatsoever.
Best Wishes.

In 2000, fund giant Vanguard Group introduced what it calls its Admiral class of shares as a way of rewarding loyal investors. Shareholders who held $150,000 for at least three years or $50,000 for at least 10 years were bumped up into the Admiral class by Vanguard. That gave them an immediate reward of annual fees that were as much as one-third lower than normal.
Today, $1.1 trillion, or fully 36% of Vanguard’s total assets, is in Admiral shares. As the firm’s assets have grown, the Admiral requirements have fallen: Anyone with at least $10,000 in an index fund or $50,000 in an actively managed fund qualifies, regardless of tenure. Fidelity Investments also offers shares with lower expenses to investors who keep a minimum of $10,000 in a fund.
You might think many other mutual-fund companies would have followed suit. But Admiral never aroused any “chatter or controversy or envy or emulation,” says a Vanguard executive who was involved in the launch. Several fund-industry experts say they aren’t aware of other firms that have done anything similar.

That is a good way to award your investors. Also their fees continue to drop as the asset grow. How many fund family can honestly give you that? No wonder investors are moving their asset elsewhere.

My income sleeve was down 0.77% and I feel performed reasonably well this past week in comparison to its index proxy (AGG) which was down 1.29%. The sleeve consisting of five funds (LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX) has a duration of 3.36 while it's index proxy has a duration of 5.29.

rphyx = down .101
rsivx = down .3
tginx = down .876
mwcrx = down .167
Have a great weekend, Derf

@Crash, the Morningstar quote function has 1 week performance data. Go under the performance tab and under trailing returns.
Looking at mine again, ACCNX dropped. 1.14% for the week. DLFNX was down 1.09%. ASDVX dropped just 0.20%.
Edited to add link. http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=DLFNX

@MFO Member: Chuck Jaffe's interview with Duane McAllister on June 3. 2015.
Regards,
Ted
(Scroll To June 3rd And Click On Download)
http://www.moneylifeshow.com/highlights.asp

FYI: The good news is that Americans are living longer and spending more years in retirement than ever before. However, funding retirement is a fast approaching crisis. On this week’s WEALTHTRACK we have an exclusive interview with Financial Thought Leader and legendary investment consultant, Charles Ellis, who tackles America’s greatest domestic financial challenge in a new book, Falling Short: The Coming Retirement Crisis and What To Do About It.
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthtrack.com/recent-programs/ellis-fixing-the-retirement-crisis/
M*: 2015 Fee Study: Investors Are Driving Expense Ratios Down: (This is a relink in case you missed it the first time.)
http://wealthtrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2015_fee_study.pdf

If they are going to an all-cap pose, I doubt they would liquidate the entire present portfolio and relinquish all of the sweet sc/mc positions in current holdings. So unless FPA sent *M a memo re. planned sales, I don't know how they would be able to estimate such a monstrous CG exposure come October, let alone now. Maybe a worst-case guesstimate? [just a quibble; bottom line--- it's gonna be uuuuugly]
corollary to reason #1: first look at the spankin' new portfolio may not happen until yr-end, leaving shareholder possibly flying in the dark for 7 months. Some people don't like to fly for 7 seconds, with eyes open. wow, trust The Force, Luke, just go with the Force..... ah, I don't think so; I couldn't do it.
MF portfolio managers, they come and go.
MF strategic objectives/investment policies, they come and go.
MFs, they come and go (and even come and go again, and again, and... :) )
Entire MF families, yes, they come and go, too.
Talk is cheap, yet sometimes can be very expensive all the same.
I say, invest accordingly. No huge stakes in anything and make them earn your trust every single day.

"Baird Advisors, the institutional fixed income investment management division of Baird, announced that it has hired a nationally-recognized municipal investment team from BMO Global Asset Management. Municipal bond portfolio managers Duane McAllister, CFA, and Erik Schleicher and analyst Joseph Czechowicz will join Baird."
"Baird expects to expand its municipal product offerings with additional municipal strategies. Said [Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer] Stanek, "While this is an opportunity to add to our municipal offering, we do not intend to change our existing strategies and funds." "
These guys are pretty fine. Since Baird has an Investor share class for quite a few funds, not a stretch to expect to gain some access to their talents , if you're into their thing. Perhaps they'll create and take charge of something new.
Probably most notable work at BMO: Intermediate Tax-Free (Y shares)
Lipper IT Muni Debt Category (as of 3/31/15)
1 yr 28 out of 219
3 yr 19 out of 184
5 yr 22 out of 158
10 yr 2 out of 103
http://bairdfunds.com/news/baird-advisors-adds-municipal-bond-team

I can't find a scorecard that will give me just a week's worth. One month results:
PRSNX -0.8%
DLFNX -0.81%
PREMX -1.95%
.......Can't say I'm terribly surprised. They keep doing what they're supposed to do for me. The share price has been sinking. But I'm not selling. All divs. reinvested. Both equities and bonds are currently in a funk. The Markets always overreact, both to the upside and downside. Rates? The inevitable will happen, Yellen style, and the Markets will go into a tizzy.

Hi Bee,
Thank you for reading my post and for the questions that it motivated.
I’ll try to address each and every one of them. If I inadvertently fail to do so, please ask again.
The portfolio that I postulated was a somewhat arbitrary attempt to capture the elusive and non-stationary Efficient Frontier that even its inventor, Harry Markowitz, doesn’t match in his investments.
For the record, it included a 30% commitment to US stocks and 10% equal allocations to Foreign Equities, US Small Cap Value, REIT, Treasury Bonds, Corporate Bonds, TIPs, and Short Term Corporate Bonds. I tried to make the portfolio rather generic in the spirit of Professor Israelsen’s recommendation.
This single attempt at a competitive portfolio does not directly reflect my portfolio which is slightly more nuanced and more numerous in holdings. My current portfolio contains both actively managed and passively managed products, although I am shifting resources in the passive direction and am attempting to simplify.
The portfolio that I tested does reflect some of my preferences and biases. I did not include any Commodities. I used Short Term Corporate Bonds as a Money Market equivalent.
The Portfolio Visualizer code option that I exercised used historical category return data to estimate future returns. A user can override that option with his own set of anticipated statistical returns. Since I deployed the historical data sets, the analysis results should be interpreted as the equivalent (minus the minor costs) of Index products.
The code makes inflation adjustments. An inflation model that incorporates historical data is a default option that I used. The user can override with his own statistical model if he so chooses. Portfolio rebalancing is done annually.
I do not believe that you can force the Portfolio Visualizer (it’s not my product) to specifically do a rising inflation rate. You can input a statistical representation of a higher mean inflation level with whatever standard deviation you deem appropriate. Now that’s hazardous duty and really getting into the weeds from a projection prospective.
Certainly costs are important, especially if future market returns are muted so that costs absorb a higher percentage of gross returns. That’s one of my motivators to increase my Index holdings.
One of the chief benefits of any respectable Monte Carlo code is that it permits rapid turnarounds for postulated what-if scenarios. By running a patch of these scenarios, a user can develop a feel for what is important and what is noise.
Since the codes use Monte Carlo methods, results are always displayed in probabilistic format. There are no guarantees that the likeliest events will happen. But for most folks, that should be the chosen route: take the most favorable odds. In the game of Blackjack, it’s not a good idea to hit when you hold a 17 hand. In roulette, its better to play a wheel with a single green zero and not with a wheel that contains both a single green zero and a double green zero.
Life is a series of challenges. Monte Carlo is an imperfect tool that can help to quantify the odds coupled to some of those challenges. Retirement decisions are one such task.
Thanks again for your interest and your questions.
Best Wishes.

Gundlach was predicting that in 2015 the 10 year could potentially take out its modern day era low of 1.38%. It got down to around 1.64% and then the big bad bear began as we are now at 2.40%. This week was the largest weekly rise in yields since June 2013. One floating rate fund was up this week but it's not available in all states. It kills me to not be able to buy it. In deference to a poster here who's playing it shall remain unnamed.

FWIW, I own GIFAX (load waived) and it was even or slightly up over the past week. I know it's up overall during the past month.

Gundlach was predicting that in 2015 the 10 year could potentially take out its modern day era low of 1.38%. It got down to around 1.64% and then the big bad bear began as we are now at 2.40%. This week was the largest weekly rise in yields since June 2013. One floating rate fund was up this week but it's not available in all states. It kills me to not be able to buy it. In deference to a poster here who's playing it shall remain unnamed.

No, sir. Geist and Ende were the outliers at FPA for years. While the rest of FPA were hard-core absolute value guys, G&E ran splendid small to mid cap growth funds, fully invested in very high-quality companies, negligible turnover, drifted between small and mid, growth and blend. Returns were consistent and solid.
The funds were F P A Paramount (FPRAX), F P A Perennial (FPPFX) and the closed-end Source Capital (SOR), and they were pretty much clones. F P A decided, about a year ago, for whatever reason, to take FPRAX from the guys and convert it to a global all-cap absolute value fund. Now FPPFX is becoming the U S version of Paramount, it seems.
But ... Geist did retire in 2014 and Ende, at age 70, is moving toward the door. Greg Herr, more of a Romick-type guy, was added to the team several years ago, presumably in anticipation of the transition.
Two reasons to sell:
1. the new fund will likely have nothing in common with the old. If you had a reason for buying Perennial before, it's gone now.
2. the tax hit will be substantial. Morningstar calculates your potential capital gains exposure at 63%, that is, 63% of the fund's NAV is a result of so far untaxed capital gains. If the portfolio is liquidated, you could see up to $36/share in taxable distributions. During the Paramount transition, the fund paid out about 40% of its NAV in taxable gains including two large distributions in two weeks.
Certainly the tax hit will vary based on your cost basis, but my as-yet uninformed guess is that if your cost basis is high - $35/share or more - you might be better getting out before the big tax hit comes.
But, really, I'm not a tax guy. That's just a superficial take on it.
David

FYI: Talk to any money-management executive for more than two minutes and you will get an earful about how impatient investors are. And it is true: Individuals and institutions alike chase performance in good times and bail out in bad times.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/06/05/why-mutual-funds-should-pay-investors-for-loyalty/tab/print/

@MFO Members:
M* Article: John L. Keeley RIP
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=700198

Hi Bee,
Thanks for the reference to Dr. Craig Israelsen’s paper on the performance of portfolio asset mix options.
Based on precisely past performance data, he made a case for his equally divided 7 category portfolio.
Since I used the word “precisely”, and from my earlier submittals, you can easily guess where I’m headed with this post.
Israelsen’s work has a major shortcoming when using it for planning purposes. The results are perfectly tied to the exact schedule of returns recorded by past markets. They allow for no wiggle room. To expect identical results in the future requires that the order of returns must be precisely replicated. The chances of that happening are virtually zero.
The sequence of returns in any investment is significant to end wealth and portfolio survival. I’m sorry but once again, this uncertainty of the sequencing of future returns points to the use of Monte Carlo simulations to examine various portfolio options.
Although I favor the Flexible Retirement Planner for many Monte Carlo investment issues, I used the Portfolio Visualizer (PV) code to run a few sample cases because of convenience. I can run the PV version on my I-pad.
I examined 3 portfolios assuming a 1M dollar initial value with a 5.5% annual drawdown that was adjusted for inflation. To replicate Israelsen’s work as closely as possible, I assumed a 25-year retirement period. My analyses used the historical category returns formatted in a manner for random selections.
As a baseline, I inputted a simple 4 category portfolio with the standard 50/10/30/10 mix of US Equities, Foreign Equities, US Bond, and Money Market holdings. As a second portfolio, I duplicated the Israelsen 7 category portfolio that is equally divided. As a third case, I invented an 8 category portfolio which was more heavily weighted to US equities including Small Cap Value, TIPS, and a replacement of the money market holding with a Short Term Corporate Bond position. All three portfolios were basically a 60/40 split between equities and fixed income products.
I let the Portfolio Visualizer loose on all three portfolios.
The baseline portfolio had a median end wealth of 2.66M dollars with a survival probability of 83%. I’m not a happy warrior at that survival probability.
The Israelsen portfolio had a median end wealth of 3.73M dollars with an improve survival rate of 90%. So far, Israelsen wins.
But that winning record didn’t last beyond a single alternative option. The portfolio that I assembled had a median end wealth of 4.45M dollars with a much more attractive likelihood of survival at the 96% level. Note that I make no claims that my portfolio is optimum, but it is an improvement over the Israelsen construction.
This is yet another illustration of the powerful impact that Monte Carlo calculations can make when stress testing a portfolio designed for a long-term retirement period. The inputs are completed in minutes, the results are displayed in seconds, and a limitless set of what-if scenarios can be explored in a half-hour.
I urge all MFOers to become familiar with Monte Carlo tools. Your own analyses are superior to those reported by many financial advisors.
Best Wishes.

My condolences to his family and friends.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1324203/000119312515214195/d938418d497.htm
497 1 d938418d497.htm 497
KEELEY FUNDS, INC.
Supplement dated June 5, 2015
to the Prospectus dated January 31, 2015, as supplemented May 22, 2015
This supplement provides new and additional information for, or otherwise supplements, the Prospectus (as previously supplemented) for the Keeley Funds, Inc. (the “Corporation,” with each of its series being a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”) and should be read in conjunction with that document.
On June 4, 2015, Mr. John L. Keeley, Jr., the president and a director of the Corporation and a portfolio manager of certain of its Funds, passed away. As a result, all references to Mr. Keeley hereby are deleted from the prospectus.
Mr. Keeley founded Keeley Asset Management Corp. (“KAMCO”), the investment adviser to the Corporation. He also owned a controlling interest in Joley Corp., the parent company of KAMCO, and therefore was deemed to “control” KAMCO. Because of Mr. Keeley’s death, there was a change in control of KAMCO. Under the terms of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, such a change in control results in an assignment and the automatic termination of a fund’s investment advisory agreement.
Therefore, each Fund’s investment advisory agreement with KAMCO (collectively, the “Advisory Agreements”) automatically terminated. For KAMCO to continue to provide services to the Funds, it is anticipated that shareholders of each Fund will be asked to approve a new investment advisory agreement with KAMCO on behalf of the Fund (collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”). Except for the effective and termination dates, the terms of the New Advisory Agreements will be identical to the terms of the terminated Advisory Agreements.
To ensure the Funds receive continuity of investment advisory services until their shareholders have the opportunity to vote on whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has approved interim advisory agreements between each Fund and KAMCO (the “Interim Advisory Agreements”), pursuant to which KAMCO will continue to provide investment management services to the Funds under the same terms as it did under the terminated Advisory Agreements. The Interim Advisory Agreements went into effect on June 4, 2015 and each will terminate upon the earlier of (i) November 1, 2015 (a period of 150 days), or (ii) the effective date of New Advisory Agreements approved by the Funds’ shareholders.
Please Retain This Supplement For Future Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KEELEY FUNDS, INC.
Supplement dated June 5, 2015
to the Statement of Additional Information dated January 31, 2015, as supplemented May 22, 2015
This supplement provides new and additional information for, or otherwise supplements, the Statement of Additional Information (as previously supplemented) for the Keeley Funds, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and should be read in conjunction with that document.
On June 4, 2015, Mr. John L. Keeley, Jr., the president of the Corporation, passed away. As a result, all references to Mr. Keeley hereby are deleted from the Statement of Additional Information. On that same date, Mr. Kevin M. Keeley, previously a vice president of the Corporation, was appointed as president of the Corporation.
Please Retain This Supplement For Future Reference