FYI: The S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average are up 2.1% and 2.6%, respectively, on track for their best monthly performance since February.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/05/19/morning-moneybeat-forget-sell-in-may-and-go-away/tab/print/
Current Futures:
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

FYI: Given today's environmental conditions, the natural resource offers investors varied opportunities.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/05/18/different-ways-to-make-water-plays?t=mutual-funds&page_all=1
M* Snapshot CFWAX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/CFWAX/quote.html
Lipper snapshot CFWAX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/CFWAX?countrycode=US
M* Snapshot CGW: http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/ARCX/CGW/quote.html
CFWAX Is Ranked #6 In The (NR) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/natural-resources/calvert-global-water-fund/cfwax
CGW Is Ranked #13 In The (NR) ETF Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/etfs/natural-resources-funds/guggenheim-s&p-global-water-index-etf/cgw

The table shows $42,557 for a single person. If you are debt free that housing figure would be drastically lower. But also, you have to buy a new vehicle (or newer used one if you are really frugal) every 8 years or so and not sure that is computed anywhere in the table. The healthcare figure also seems a bit higher than medicare plus a 100% supplemental policy. Most of the debt free singles in my area that are retired and over age 65 get by on an average of $36,000 annually (some a tad higher/lower) If they only receive SS and get the average there ($1294 monthly) that means they have out of pocket expenses of around $20,500 annually. So if they have an investment nest egg of $2,000,000 they can live off their principal only if needed without the need of that Monte Carlo mumbo jumbo. If anything they better begin ramping up their retirement spending ala travel, a summer vacation rental, and the like unless they want to leave a lot to their heirs.

>> The only thing that's obvious is that Krugman is either an idiot or he's blatantly lying.
Wow. What a thing to write. Talk about heat instead of light.
Here:
[Fatas] Let me start with the obvious point: your debt is someone else's assets.
http://fatasmihov.blogspot.com/2015/02/those-mountains-of-debt-and-assets.html
>> counts the asset (all the Treasury bonds we hold are counted as assets in our net worth) but it doesn't count the debt.
Why do you think that is?
>> not about Americans and foreigners, it's about which Americans got the benefits and which Americans pay the costs.
right
>> The benefits have already been given. The costs have yet to be paid.
it is always this way !
>> We've been running annual deficits since the mid 1950s with only a couple years of surpluses at the end of Clinton's presidency.
So? It does not matter, all that matters is percentage of GDP.
>> I'll agree with Fatas, growing debt doesn't have to mean we're living beyond our means, but it sure looks that way.
You are not getting it, and I would say do not want to, but your writing is so clear and your interest in reading is manifestly so high, that cannot be the case. Keep reading is all I can suggest.
... Except if you really think Paul Krugman is 'not even close', well, then, no, there is no point in more reading. Quite aside from his being idiotic or blatant liar.
The below is rather deep in the weeds, but may be of interest. Maurice above for example thinks there is a real problem with Paul Samuelson as he read him and the sophisticated views on debt needs and levels today:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/03/bill-black-is-justifiably-irate-monday-hoisted-from-comments-weblogging.html
This might help those who read Samuelson (Paul) in college:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/the-incomparable-economist/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/samuelson-friedman-and-monetary-policy/comment-page-1/
>> Fatas didn't say that debt isn't an indication that we're living beyond our means. He said it doesn't have to be.
Help me understand how this is something other than hairsplitting.
Finally, share what you think the answers are yourself, to whatever you say the problems are? Somehow cut more spending? What? Gold standard? Raise wealthy taxes back to 90%?

Krugman said "Antonio Fatas, commenting on recent work on deleveraging or the lack thereof, emphasizes one of my favorite points: no, debt does not mean that we’re stealing from future generations." Fatas said absolutely nothing about stealing from future generations. He only said that rising debt levels don't necessarily mean we're living beyond our means and he provided as an example the government of Singapore. He also admitted subsequently that Singapore is an outlier among governments.
Fatas even says "This argument does not deny that the actual composition and ownership of assets and liabilities matters" and goes on to say that one has to be careful drawing conclusions from analyses that refer only to the debt side of the balance sheet.
So Krugman goes on to say "Globally, and for the most part even within countries, a rise in debt isn’t an indication that we’re living beyond our means, because as Fatas puts it, one person’s debt is another person’s asset; or as I equivalently put it, debt is money we owe to ourselves — an obviously true statement that, I have discovered, has the power to induce blinding rage in many people."
The only thing that's obvious is that Krugman is either an idiot or he's blatantly lying. I'm not sure which is worse. Fatas didn't say that debt isn't an indication that we're living beyond our means. He said it doesn't have to be. And then Krugman claims that one person's debt is another person's asset is equivalent to debt being money we owe to ourselves. I guess if I loan money to myself that's true but as of last August, more than one third of our debt was owned by foreigners.
forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/10/28/who-owns-the-most-u-s-debt/
That's something more than $6 trillion of "our" debt that is someone else's asset!
The rest let's say is our own asset. But when you look at what started this discussion, the median net worth of Americans, that counts the asset (all the Treasury bonds we hold are counted as assets in our net worth) but it doesn't count the debt. Similar to what Fatas is saying, it’s dangerous to draw conclusions paying attention to only one side of the balance sheet. Yet when I made a comment about the national debt you suggested we should exclude that because it misguides the discussion. If you really believe we owe the money to ourselves and that we're not stealing from future generations why would you be comfortable with a discussion of net worth that counts the asset but excludes the liability?
The question of whether we're stealing from future generations isn't solved even if all of our debt was owned by Americans because it's not about Americans and foreigners, it's about which Americans got the benefits and which Americans pay the costs. The benefits have already been given. The costs have yet to be paid. We've been running annual deficits since the mid 1950s with only a couple years of surpluses at the end of Clinton's presidency. I'll agree with Fatas, growing debt doesn't have to mean we're living beyond our means, but it sure looks that way. We're not at all like his Singapore example where they take the money they raise from issuing debt and save it because they regularly run budget surpluses. I would love to hear a logical explanation why future generations aren't going to be worse off than if we handed them a country with far less debt than we'll pass on, but Krugman isn't even close.

That healthcare number seemed low to me. That could be premiums only and is not including out of pocket expenses including the deductible.
Edit: Additionally, the food number may not be counting eating out. Entertainment is a broad category but in this case I don't think eating out is in that number. I agree with Maurice in that $100 a week is a fair number. It doesn't take much anymore to ring that up in a supermarket.

Searching for Clarity Among the Dots
Fixed Income Outlook
April 2015
From Osterweis Strategic Investment OSTVX
In Seurat’s painting, his dots produce a clear image. We can’t say the same for the FOMC’s
dots. The ever-changing plots, torturous language and a nebulous dependency on data have led to increased investor uncertainty. Also, it seems each time a Fed official gives a speech, his or her views conflict with those of other Fed officials who are also on the speaking circuit. At a minimum, this may indicate that there is a healthy debate within the Fed about when to raise rates. From where we sit, real world inflation is brewing, asset bubbles are growing and global QE has pushed investors into uncomfortably risky positions. Global central banks are in uncharted waters and the unwinding
of QE followed by the normalization of interest rates could cause significant market volatility. In contrast, the British QE program was much smaller, so it cannot be used as a test case for the effects of unwinding. While we do know that central bankers are keenly aware of the risks caused by the bursting of asset bubbles, if history is a guide, they will likely remain blind to them until after the dams burst. While we do not know when or how the Fed is going to normalize interest rate policy, we do expect that it may involve significant dislocations, at least initially. At current levels in many asset
classes, investors don’t seem to be getting compensated for moving out on the risk curve. Until that changes, we remain steadfast in our view that seeking to control risk while working to obtain moderate yields in shorter duration high yield and convertible securities is the most attractive alternative at this point. We continue to keep cash as dry powder for when we do get bouts of volatility and can layer in longer dated assets at attractive yields
http://www.osterweis.com/files/Fixed Income Outlook_1Q15_Final_unlocked.pdf

Good grief. The WoP is for the most part this huge success, with truly lousy PR.
Not opinion, evidence-based, something von Mises was in short supply of. (I don't trust my opinions myself; need to read intensively and skeptically.)
Suggest googling before posting assertions. I have posted this before; shield your eyes if Krugman glare is too much:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/poverty-policy-truths/
more recent:
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/04/paul_krugman_gop_enabled_poverty_is_a_death_sentence_for_both_blacks_and_whites/
This is best, but long:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/50th_anniversary_cea_report_-_final_post_embargo.pdf
older overviews:
http://time.com/3659383/war-on-poverty-1964/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/how-the-war-on-poverty-succeeded-in-four-charts
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-povertys-surprising-success
MJG, point taken, thanks; I will try to respond with something thoughtful about stimulus spending and the fallacies in that callow youtube thing. And not the cartoon homeowner with burning house talking to newly arrived firefighter: 'No, thanks, I'm a libertarian.'

@PRESSmUP
See the earlier link in the MFO board post below, especially the Birmingham Biz Journal news link I attached:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/61259/#Comment_61259
Here is the Birmingham Biz Journal link from the above post for your convenience:
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2015/04/23/vulcan-value-partners-names-new-president-closes.html
Also, here is the news from the WSJ (you may have to Google the article):
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/04/24/funds-when-closing-time-doesnt-come-soon-enough/
Disclosure: I also have VVPSX in a non-taxable account.

Shadow....the currently closed fund in this family is VVPSX, the small cap value fund. I got a toe-hold in this when learning it was closing, as SC value selections are few and far between.
The LC fund's performance does look attractive though. Closing a LC growth fund at $1.8B is unusual.

This has been going on since 401k's came on the scene. Life insurance companies are a big reason. Whoever is the middle man in the process needs their cut.

Also,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-18/a-200-million-hedge-fund-trade-in-your-bond-etf-is-normal-now

"Additionally, in terms of wealth distribution I'd be curious to know what the population of the "1%" looks like over the years and whether or not that uppermost level of wealth is held by more or fewer hands."
I would think that the numbers to reach the 1% level are being adjusted upwards. Even with that said, I suspect there are more people in that category than before. The average person didn't invest in the markets just a relatively short time ago in history.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580215000027/financialinvestorstrustvulca.htm
497 1 financialinvestorstrustvulca.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Vulcan Value Partners Fund (the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 18, 2015 TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED AUGUST 31, 2014
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for the Fund dated August 31, 2014. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.vulcanvaluepartners.com or calling us at 1.877.421.5078.
Effective as of the close of business on June 1, 2015, the Fund will close to new investors, except as described below. This change will affect new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund either directly or through third party intermediaries. Existing shareholders of the Fund may continue to purchase additional shares of the Fund.
*A financial advisor whose clients have established accounts in the Fund as of June 1, 2015, may continue to open new accounts in the Fund for any of its existing or new clients.
*Existing or new participants in a qualified retirement plan, such as a 401(k) plan, profit sharing plan, 403(b) plan or 457 plan, which has an existing position in the Fund as of June 1, 2015, may continue to open new accounts in the Fund. In addition, if such qualified retirement plans have a related retirement plan formed in the future, this plan may also open new accounts in the Fund.
The Fund retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

FYI: Investors are having a harder time trading individual bonds, a conundrum that’s driving big money managers into fixed-income exchange-traded funds, according to a report from Greenwich Associates.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/05/18/liquidity-fears-pushing-big-investors-into-bond-etfs-study-finds/tab/print/

FYI: (The Linkster is moving his rate increase from July 2016, to August 2016)
Regards,
Ted
https://twitter.com/pdacosta/status/599382504596877312

FYI: Investors have a new reason to take a close look at the funds in their 401(k) plan, in the wake of a decision Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court kept alive a closely watched case involving 401(k)-plan fees, overturning a lower-court ruling that the suit was filed too late.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2015/05/18/does-your-401k-use-high-cost-funds/tab/print/?mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Ftotalreturn%2F2015%2F05%2F18%2Fdoes-your-401k-use-high-cost-funds%2Ftab%2Fprint

Just a few quick thoughts and then I will return to edit later.
Housing - might be fairly accurate if utilities are included.
Transportation - a quick and dirty calculation at $2.50/gallon of regular buys one about 2700 gallons. In seven years of commuting to work with a Silverado pickup I've used 5100 gallons. The articles estimate seems high but may include airfare etc. that I am not accounting for.
Food - $102/week for groceries is more than twice what I spend on average. I'm not sure if dining out is included here or in the Entertainment category.
Apparel - I don't spend that much in 10 years. Sandals and shorts aren't that expensive.

Just getting ready to walk out the door and go hiking and you start another one. I've always thought you need to be debt free (no mortgage, no rent, etc.) For a single retiree over age 65, $2,000,000 should do the trick and $3,000,000 for a couple. That's assuming your only income is Social Security and you don't live in some ultra expensive region of the country. It's also based on never making another penny in the market and conversely never losing another penny. Albeit I would hope your account can still compound, even if ever so slightly over those retirement years. Not a popular concept here, but you can control your losses in the market. On the other hand, I know many retirees who don't have even $100,000 but because of generous pensions and SS are living the good life. Dex, you are the master of interesting threads where there is never a right or wrong answer. Check in later this evening.

That other post about median net worth went off the rails - so ...
More info that just says to me the net worth numbers don't work.
http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/05/18/is-1-million-enough-retirement-average-american.aspx