Peter Smith, chairman of the Templeton trust, acknowledged that the fund’s performance was “very disappointing,”

Möbius has been lagging the emerging market index for some time while the fund carries high expense ratio (A shares has a 5.75% load with ER at 1.8% for example) relative to its peers. So this no surprise the transition takes place.

Disappointing results as of late may be to blame.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-13/mobius-to-step-down-as-lead-manager-of-templeton-emerging-trust

Our risk and return performance metrics through quarter ending June 2015 have been posted to the Search Tools, including updates to Three Alarm, Honor Roll, and Great Owl funds, and well as Dashboard of all funds profiled.

I think we need another category: Funds that will out perform in their category over the - next 5, 10, 15, 20+ years

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/44402/000089843215000896/a497.htm
Neuberger Berman Equity Funds®
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus, each dated December 15, 2014, and the Statement of Additional Information, dated December 15, 2014 (as amended February 5, 2015, April 14, 2015, and June 17, 2015)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neuberger Berman Global Thematic Opportunities Fund
Class A, Class C and Institutional Class
The Board of Trustees of Neuberger Berman Equity Funds (the “Trust”) has approved the liquidation of Neuberger Berman Global Thematic Opportunities Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust. Accordingly, the Fund will cease its investment operations, liquidate its assets and make a liquidating distribution to shareholders of record.
The date of liquidation for the Fund currently is anticipated to be on or about August 21, 2015 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shareholders may continue to redeem their Fund shares through the Liquidation Date. As of the close of business on July 22, 2015, the Fund will no longer accept orders to purchase Fund shares from new investors or existing shareholders (including purchases through dividend reinvestments). In connection with the liquidation, the Fund may depart from its stated goals, strategies and techniques as it begins to convert all portfolio securities to cash or cash equivalents in preparation for the final distribution to shareholders. Any shareholder who purchased Class A or Class C Fund shares on or after June 25, 2015, will be reimbursed any applicable sales charge paid and will not be subject to any applicable contingent deferred sales charge. If any such sales charge has already been paid, that amount will be reimbursed to the shareholder.
Shareholders who elect to redeem their Fund shares prior to the completion of the liquidation will be redeemed in the ordinary course at the Fund’s net asset value per share. Shareholders may exchange their Fund shares for shares of another fund in the Neuberger Berman mutual fund complex in accordance with the terms of the Fund’s prospectus at any time prior to the Fund’s cessation of operations. Each shareholder who does not choose either of those options and remains in the Fund will receive a liquidating cash distribution equal to the aggregate net asset value of the Fund shares that such shareholder holds at the time of the liquidation. Shareholders are encouraged to consider options that may be suitable for the reinvestment of their liquidation proceeds, including exchanging into another fund in the Neuberger Berman mutual fund complex.
The liquidation of the Fund will result in one or more taxable events for shareholders that are subject to federal income tax. A redemption or exchange of Fund shares prior to the Fund’s cessation of operations will generally give rise to a capital gain or loss (depending on the shareholder’s tax basis in the shares) for federal income tax purposes. In connection with the liquidation, the Fund will declare taxable distributions of its previously undistributed net investment income and net capital gain, if any, in advance of its normal annual distribution schedule. All liquidation proceeds paid to shareholders will generally be treated as received by them in exchange for their Fund shares and will therefore generally give rise to a capital gain or loss, again depending on their respective tax bases in their shares.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders who hold their Fund shares through a retirement plan or account (such as a 401(k) plan or individual retirement account) should consult their tax advisers regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares prior to the completion of the liquidation or the receipt of a liquidating cash distribution. Upon the receipt of a distribution from the Fund, whether in the form of a redemption or a liquidating cash distribution, such shareholders may have a limited time within which to reinvest the distribution proceeds to avoid adverse tax consequences.
The date of this supplement is July 13, 2015.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
NEUBERGER BERMAN
Neuberger Berman Management LLC
605 Third Avenue 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10158-0180
Shareholder services: 800-877-9700
Institutional Services: 800-366-6264
Website: www.nb.com

These guys sure know how to launch a fund!
DODLX Dodge & Cox Global Bond -6.25% 1 year
(but I own worse. :))

I agree that this is not a good time to purchase a fixed immediate annuity. The calculation may be a bit different for someone (over 59.5) in the accumulation phase.
In most market environments, fixed annuities generally provide better returns than comparable CDs (albeit wth higher risk - the insurer might go bust, and much more severe "early withdrawal penalties"). Here's a Marketwatch column that says the same thing with a lot more words.
Even in this low interest rate environment, Fidelity shows a NYLife 3 year fixed annuity (with a whopping 7%+ surrender rate) yielding 1.75%. That's a few basis points higher than I can find at a credit union. Not enough of a difference to make it worthwhile - just enough to show that sound, shorter term fixed annuities can still beat CDs. (Going out five years, the current CDs seem to do better than fixed annuities from top rated insurers, and with lower surrender costs.)
That's the only reason why I could see purchasing a deferred fixed annuity now - as a CD alternative. (The reason for age 59.5 is so that there is no IRS penalty for cashing out.)

Correction - it was pointed out to me that I misstated the current Vanguard managed payout fund. It is VPGDX, not VTINX.
As a side note - like most everyone, I'm prone to mistakes. Sometimes they're embarrassing, other times like here they simply reflect sloppiness (I really did know which fund I wanted to point to). Either way, please post the correct facts. Better that everyone have the correct information quickly. Thanks.

Thanks msf. Correction noted. However your .999% batting average is still the best here IMHO.
In fact, knowing you're there to fact-check many of us (at great sacrifice of time and effort I'm sure) has led me to try to be more careful. Suspect that's true of others. Thanks for all you do.
--- Side note. At some point we need to toss-away the most unlikely scenarios and simply not insure against them. Living to 116 might be one. Putin dropping a nuke on my house might be another, as believe my homeowners' policy excludes acts of war.
Regards

Morn'in @hank
You noted:
"Perhaps above caption/question is offered tongue-in-cheek. However, it's highly unlikely anyone sits down on the weekend and decides how to invest during the coming week. (And anyone so inclined would soon run amuck of mutual fund trading restrictions or be eaten alive by trading costs.)
So I must assume the initial post and question are intended only as a conversation starters, rather than as a serious question."
>>>The "problems" being "repaired" was tongue-in-cheek for the most part. But, moving the cash to something productive this week was serious. And, no; this would not be an over the weekend decision, but is part of the our normal watching (trends) that is a cumulative process for the investments. We already have quite a bit of money towards the various sectors of healthcare related; but may place more into this area, too.
We wouldn't run into restrictions with Fidelity for too many mutual fund trades with any money moves this week. And we have moved more towards the etf area which would not cause a trading problem, as well as the numerous etf offerings at Fidelity (Fidelity and I-shares) for broadbased sectors that are available without a commission. Worst-case is that etf trades would be $7.95 cost via online purchase.
Fidelity etf offerings
I expected some thougths, which is why I posted the equity holdings breakdown we currently are invested into. So, serious to that aspect.
Lastly, and not related to the above is that we may have a short period of time in mid-August to stimulate the Michigan economy and the initial plan is to visit Leelanau county for a few days. Have not been to this area since the early 80's. Hell, should have purchased real estate there and then. :) Anyway, you know this is a beautiful area, eh?
I snooped around online for this and that for the area, as was surprised to find so many "for sale" real estates listings for that county. About 1,000 listings for all property types, and about 140 listings for waterfront. 'Course, some of this is condo listings and also tied to a portion of Traverse City. Zillow Leelanau waterfront Appears that "some" of the listings are not in Leelanau county....a Zillow problem I guess.
Today, we are more of the "we'll rent a property for a week, versus buy a second property". We have "dirt", 1.5 acres, in Eagle Harbor; but that is "not" the west coast of Michigan; and will likely become inherited property, as we don't plan to sell; unless approached with a "offer that is too good to refuse". Tis a long way from downstate Michigan and this area has about as much traffic from Chicago and/or Minnesota, as Michigan. A much different part of Michigan from the downstate, populated areas. And as you know, too; a lot of the west coast (Lake Michigan) has property owners from the Chicago area, aside from Michigan owners over the past 100 years.
Eagle Harbor Michigan
Hey, take care; and thank you for your thoughts and time.
Catch

This is pretty simple, really. Assuming you are referring to immediate, fixed annuities, the process is sort of like Social Security or a corporate/public pension. In return for giving an insurer a sum of money, you receive an income for life. The income could be for your life only, for you and a spouse, a period certain (for at least 10, 15, etc. years even if you (and your spouse) should pass before that period is up. Depending on the interest rate used and your life expectancy, the income received will vary. Now is not a good time to give money to an insurance company for an immediate fixed annuity, since rates are really bad. We are advising clients to wait until immediate annuity rates are in the 3-4% range. That is still not great, but a lot better than they are now.
This is for immediate fixed annuities only. The income starts now. We would certainly not use deferred fixed annuities in the current interest rate environment. This guaranteed contract depends on the ability of the insurance company to remain solvent, so do your homework on the company. And I would never recommend something like VPGDX as an annuity substitute. It is a mutual fund, where you really have no guarantee of any kind. With almost 60% in stocks, you need to be able to handle a 14-15% loss in that 60% (assuming a correction will occur). So the fixed annuity is an ok option, if you are willing to give that lump sum of money to an insurance company in exchange for a guaranteed payout for your lifetime. Again, sorta like SS or a pension.

This graphic from J.P. Morgan is one of the best. We use it all the time. It should help all investors understand that 1) the AVERAGE intra-year decline is around 14%, and 2) we are long overdue for a correction (not a crash or bear market, but a correction). If investors cannot handle a correction averaging 14% in their domestic stock allocation, they should not have money in the stock market. I suggest all MFO discussion board members copy this graphic, and keep it handy, just as a reminder.

Correction - it was pointed out to me that I misstated the current Vanguard managed payout fund. It is VPGDX, not VTINX.
As a side note - like most everyone, I'm prone to mistakes. Sometimes they're embarrassing, other times like here they simply reflect sloppiness (I really did know which fund I wanted to point to). Either way, please post the correct facts. Better that everyone have the correct information quickly. Thanks.

There are some forms of insurance that are fairly clearly not cost effective. This is for at least a couple of reasons:
- The expected payout is not that much more than the cost of the loss, and
- The cost of the loss is low enough that you can "self insure"
These apply to collision/comprehensive insurance on older cars - the amount of the payout will be small because the depreciated value of the car is small. Since it is small as an absolute amount, it can't be large relative to the premiums you paid (bullet 1). Also since the payout's small, you'll be able to afford self insurance (bullet 2). I feel dental insurance has similar attributes, because the payout is capped at such a low amount.
On the other hand, people buy term life insurance, even though they expect to lose 100% of the premiums. The payout is large (albeit unlikely), and the cost of self insuring is prohibitive.
IMHO annuities are similar. The typical person likely loses a little - that's the expected cost of the insurance. But the potential payoff is huge, in the unlikely event that you live as long as Ms. Susannah Mushatt Jones (116 and counting)
Consider the cost of self insuring. Sure you can take a pile of money and invest it, but you can't have say, a 99.9% confidence level that you'll be able to pay out that long at a fixed amount, unless you invest a heck of a lot more than makes any reasonable sense. You might be able to afford that, but to what end? You'll wind up way underspending, and not enjoying the use of that money. That's a huge cost.
"Expensive price tag" might mean that you (and many others) feel that life insurance companies are making money hand over fist with these policies. After a little digging, I did find a statement confirming my understanding - that if not for the money that the insurance companies make investing your premiums, they'd actually be losing money. (As you pointed out, they're not making a whole lot of money on those investments.)
In effect, insurance companies are banks. They borrow from savers (policy holders), and invest the money at a higher rate of return than they pay out. But they do pay out, and they add value in providing insurance - spreading risk. Try doing that yourself - see if you can find enough people to set up a tontine efficiently.
Here's a page quoting Warren Buffett (who probably knows a little about insurance :-)):

The premiums that an insurer takes in usually do not cover the losses and expenses it eventually must pay. That leaves it running an "underwriting loss", which is the cost of float. An insurance business has value if its cost of float over time is less than the cost the company would otherwise incur to obtain funds. But the business is a lemon if its cost of float is higher than market rates for money."

Thanks for kind words.
Hey, income funds on my mind lately, just past the 59.5 mark.
A look back at some notables this past year, sorted by APR highest to lowest:

Hi @AndyJ, Have not checked; but just from the top of the head recall. The 60 day rule "sale" holding period for some funds is not necessarily a Fido fee, if I recall properly.

The 60d early redemption fee I meant is Fido's for a non-Fido fund purchased NTF. Of course the funds themselves may have redemption fees of their own. Sorry Catch, should've mentioned the NTF part.
Anyhow, Vanguard did dump their old 180-day NTF absurdity and matched Fido's terms.

@hank - I'll try to address your questions as best I can. But I would first like to point out that there are subtle (and not so subtle) differences among the various products out there.
At the 50,000 foot level, annuities and other insurance products are just that - insurance. They aim to insure (guarantee) something that you want insured (e.g. that your checks won't run out, no matter how long you live). In contrast, noninsured products provide a different but related service - managing your cash flows so that it's likely (but not guaranteed) to last as long as you do, and likely (but not guaranteed) to remain relatively constant (with or without annual increases/inflation adjustments, depending on the product).
Mutual fund companies have come up with two different types of "managed payout" products to manage your cash flow. One is designed like an annuity - to spend down after a number of years (like a "term certain only" policy). Another is designed to last in perpetuity - drawing income only and preserving principal.
As the linked-to article points out, Vanguard and Schwab provide funds of the latter type. Vanguard had problems with its three funds (designed for different levels of growth/risk and different payout levels), and combined them into a single fund VTINX. Schwab still has its three funds:SWJRX, SWKRX, SWLRX.
Fidelity's Income Replacement Funds can be found here. Regarding PIMCO, it had two funds, PIMCO Real Income 2019 and 2029. Apparently they never got much traction and were liquidated Nov 14, 2014, shortly before their manager was dismissed for improper trading.
PIMCO still seems to offer a "Real Income Strategy" if you can figure out how to participate. (The page links only to generic mutual fund and separate account pages.)
If you'd like to compare these funds with how insurance companies invest, here's a two page paper on that from the Chicago Fed, April 2013.

If already posted, my apologies, but "Treasure Island" has an ace in the hole:
puerto-rico-new-age-tax-haven

Ted posted earlier that Oppenheimer muni funds have significant exposure to Puerto Rico bonds, > 20%, while the more conservative Vanguard funds have less than much lower exposure. Vanguard High Yield Tax Free fund has the highest exposure at 1.5%. The more pertinent question is why and who should be responsible to the investors.
There is no free lunch in investing. Juicing the yields have its consequences as Oppenheimer is facing today.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/07/sp-500-intra-year-declines/print/

Lewis' link succenctly lays out three prime areas of concern with these. Agree with all.
Junkster's done a great job over recent weeks researching these and sharing his impressions.
He, msf, Bob C and some others on the board understand them far better than I do.
However, I can never get past the simple math that seems to show that they give you back over a roughly 15-year time-span (+ -) essentially all your money along with a very low rate of return (in the order of 1 or 2% compounded). Of course, it depends on how long you live. Exceeding that period produces a somewhat better rate of return.
I'm big on inflation protection. Maybe that's because my formative years budgeting & investing were during the highly inflationary 70s and 80s. That left a lasting impression. Of course, there's no assurance we'll witness anything like that again anytime soon. Still - I'd list the article's point #1 (inflation protection) as my biggest concern with these products.
Junkster's point-on about the current low interest rates pretty much torpedoing any chance for an annuity purchased today to provide an attractive return on investment. That's because the annuity company has to invest that money during your drawdown period, and there aren't a lot of attractive options right now.
I think Vanguard or some other fund provider once marketed a mutual fund which was meant to generate a modest rate of return and also provide a relatively safe monthly pay-out to retirees over time. Not an annuity in name - but having similar appeal. (Unlike an annuity, the years of payout would be finite.) Anyone know what fund that might be and whether it still exists? If it does exist, it's probably struggling against the same low-rate headwinds as any similar investment today.

If you're well diversified, a hiccup overseas (or anywhere) shouldn't cause you significant grief. And when all correlations go to 1 -- ie, in 2008 -- stay the course because in such cases there IS no safe haven, and at least you know what you're holding/invested in and aren't trading around emotions or press stories!
Many such MSM news articles I've seen in recent days about "finance" and "investing" all seem to suggest that people 'do something' in response to Greece, China, rates, etc -- when if they're nicely diversified their best course of action might well be to do nothing at all. (But doing nothing doesn't 'help' the Wall Street machine any ... they don't like that kind of non-action action by us little people)