https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/354046/000137949117005298/filing694.htm
497 1 filing694.htm PRIMARY DOCUMENT
Supplement to the
Fidelity® Global Balanced Fund
December 30, 2016
Prospectus
Effective the close of business on August 11, 2017, new positions in the fund may no longer be opened. Shareholders of the fund on that date may continue to add to their fund positions existing on that date. Investors who did not own shares of the fund on August 11, 2017, generally will not be allowed to buy shares of the fund except that new fund positions may be opened: 1) by participants in most group employer retirement plans (and their successor plans) if the fund had been established (or was in the process of being established) as an investment option under the plans (or under another plan sponsored by the same employer) by August 11, 2017, 2) by participants in a 401(a) plan covered by a master record keeping services agreement between Fidelity and a national federation of employers that included the fund as a core investment option by August 11, 2017, 3) for accounts managed on a discretionary basis by certain registered investment advisers that have discretionary assets of at least $500 million invested in mutual funds and have included the fund in their discretionary account program since August 11, 2017, 4) by a mutual fund or a qualified tuition program for which FMR or an affiliate serves as investment manager, 5) by a portfolio manager of the fund, and 6) by a fee deferral plan offered to trustees of certain Fidelity funds, if the fund is an investment option under the plan. These restrictions generally will apply to investments made directly with Fidelity and investments made through intermediaries. Investors may be required to demonstrate eligibility to buy shares of the fund before an investment is accepted.
GBL-17-02
1.855563.122 August 1, 2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1116626/000111662617000007/gtfstatsticker8117-may2.htm
497 1 gtfstatsticker8117-may2.htm
T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated May 1, 2017
In section 1, the information under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” is supplemented as follows:
Effective at the close of the New York Stock Exchange on Friday, September 29, 2017, the T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund will be closed to new investors and new accounts, subject to certain exceptions. Investors who already hold shares of the fund at the close of business on Friday, September 29, 2017, will be permitted to continue to purchase additional shares.
In section 3, the information under “More Information About the Fund and Its Investment Risks” is supplemented as follows:
Subject to certain exceptions, the fund will be closed to new investors and will no longer accept new accounts, effective at the close of the New York Stock Exchange (normally 4 p.m. ET) on Friday, September 29, 2017.
After September 29, 2017, purchases will be permitted for participants in an employer-sponsored retirement plan where the fund already serves as an investment option. Additional purchases will also be permitted for an investor who already holds fund shares in an account directly with T. Rowe Price; however, purchases will be limited to that account and the investor may not open another account in the fund. Additional purchases will generally be permitted if you already hold the fund through a financial intermediary; however, you should check with the financial intermediary to confirm your eligibility to continue purchasing shares of the fund.
After September 29, 2017, new T. Rowe Price IRAs in the fund may be opened only through a direct rollover from an employer-sponsored retirement plan. If permitted by T. Rowe Price, the fund may also be purchased by new investors in intermediary wrap, asset allocation, and other advisory programs when the fund is an existing investment in the intermediary’s program. Investors may convert from one share class of the fund to a different share class of the fund, provided the investor meets the eligibility criteria for the new share class.
The fund’s closure to new investor accounts will not restrict existing shareholders from redeeming shares of the fund. However, any shareholders who redeem all fund shares in their account after September 29, 2017, will not be permitted to reestablish the account and purchase shares until the fund is reopened to new investors. Transferring ownership to another party or changing an account registration may restrict the ability to purchase additional shares.
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, to impose further restrictions, or to close the fund to any additional investments, all without prior notice.
The date of this supplement is August 1, 2017.
F132-041 8/1/17

Good funds. The retirement coming up should bother no one. I own two of the three. Thanks for the story, @Ted.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1111178/000111117817000041/sticker6336.htm
497 1 sticker6336.htm SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS
July 26, 2017
DREYFUS OPPORTUNITY FUNDS
- DREYFUS STRATEGIC BETA GLOBAL EQUITY FUND
Supplement to Current Summary Prospectus and Statutory Prospectus
The Board of Trustees of Dreyfus Opportunity Funds (the “Trust”) has approved the liquidation of Dreyfus Strategic Beta Global Equity Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust, effective on or about September 8, 2017 (the “Liquidation Date”). Before the Liquidation Date, and at the discretion of Fund management, the assets of the Fund will be liquidated and the Fund will cease to pursue its investment objective and policies. The liquidation of the Fund may result in one or more taxable events for shareholders subject to federal income tax.
Accordingly, effective on or about August 31, 2017 (the “Closing Date”), the Fund will be closed to any investments for new accounts, except that new accounts may be established by participants in group retirement plans (and their successor plans) if the Fund is established as an investment option under the plans before the Closing Date. The Fund will continue to accept subsequent investments until the Liquidation Date, except that subsequent investments made by check or pursuant to Dreyfus TeleTransfer or Dreyfus Automatic Asset Builder® no longer will be accepted as of August 24, 2017. However, subsequent investments by Dreyfus-sponsored Individual Retirement Accounts and Dreyfus-sponsored retirement plans (collectively, “Dreyfus Retirement Plans”) pursuant to Dreyfus TeleTransfer and Dreyfus Automatic Asset Builder® will be accepted on or after August 24, 2017.
Effective on the Closing Date, the front-end sales load applicable to purchases of the Fund’s Class A shares will be waived on investments made in the Fund’s Class A shares. In addition, as of that date, the contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”) applicable to redemptions of Class C shares and certain Class A shares of the Fund will be waived on any redemption of such Fund shares.
To the extent subsequent investments are made in the Fund on or after the Closing Date, the Fund’s distributor will not compensate financial institutions (which may include banks, securities dealers and other industry professionals) for selling Class C shares or Class A shares subject to a CDSC at the time of purchase.
Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in Dreyfus Retirement Plans will be exchanged for Dreyfus Class shares of General Government Securities Money Market Fund (“GGSMMF”) to avoid penalties that may be imposed on holders of Dreyfus Retirement Plans under the Internal Revenue Code if their Fund shares were redeemed in cash. Investors may obtain a copy of the Prospectus of GGSMMF by calling 1-800-DREYFUS.
6336STK0717

It (90/10) works for Buffett:
"I’ve told the trustee to put 90% of it in an S&P 500 index fund and 10% in short-term governments. And the reason for the 10% in short-term governments is that if there’s a terrible period in the market and she’s withdrawing 3% or 4% a year you take it out of that instead of selling stocks at the wrong time. She’ll do fine with that. And anybody will do fine with that. "
https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2014/03/04/warren-buffetts-90-10-rule-of-thumb-for-retirement-investing/

It looks like they all did only that some did it better than the others. The only trouble I have is the usual and customary past performance is ..... blah-blah.

Yeah - Me too. If humans lived to be 300 and spent 100 years in retirement these kinds of simulations would be a lot easier. Market cycles are more predictable over 100 years.
Just for fun, from January, 1992:
Dow - around 3000.
NASDAQ - around 600
10-year Treasury - around 7%
Gold - around $350
Never considered PRPFX an income fund. Not sure why it was included. If anything, it's a "wild card" - liable to do almost anything over 25 years - with the potential to hold up better during periods of unusual financial stress due to investments in precious metals (25%) and Swiss Francs (10%).
Personally, I don't think in these terms (generating income in retirement). Probably because my overall positioning is quite conservative, having a lot of hybrid products, I pull distributions "off the top" without the concern about market fluctuations many voice. (That's not to say I don't include income generating investments for diversification within the whole mix.) Guess my approach is quite unorthodox - based on board discussions.
@Mark - I hope @ Old_Joe gives us the color of those things he never thinks about. :)

The following Article was posted here at MFO back in February and I wanted to rekindle the conversation regarding your strategies for generating retirement income from your investments.
The article looks at 4 open-end mutual "conservative allocation" funds using the following criteria:
VWINX, USBLX, GLRBX, PRPFX
The Retirement Income withdrawal will be 4% of the beginning investment value with each successive year's withdrawal increasing by 3% to allow for inflation. Any dividends collected in excess of this will be accumulated in a money market account (MMA) until the year the mutual fund produces less in dividend income than is required and the difference between the next year's household income need and the dividend collected is taken from the MMF. I'm assuming the interest rate on the MMA is zero. If the collective cash reserve is not sufficient…or non-existent…and the dividend collected that year is not sufficient to meet household income need, then sufficient shares will be sold at the end of the year to provide the required cash. This is repeated each December at the end of the month (last trading day).
The clear winner over the the last 25 years?
Read on:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4050402-long-term-growing-income-open-end-mutual-fund-possible

@Old_Skeet: Was all this transferring of shares taking place in retirement accounts? I'm thinking that in non retirement accounts buys & sells only. Is my thinking wrong ?
Thanks, Derf

Hello,
Thanks @carew38 for the question.
No, I was never charged an additional sales charge that I remember. This is not to say all my purchases were in bond funds which got moved to equities. The way I learned to do this was through a seasonal investment strategy where during the late spring I'd do some nav exchanges from equity funds to bond funds. During the summer months I'd buy more of the bond type funds; and, then come fall I'd move some back to the equity type funds. Nothing was ever said, to me, nor was I charged any additional commission and/or fees to do these nav transfers other than the commission I paid when additional shares of the bond or stock funds were purchased. With this, I started to purchase more bond funds than equity funds and made portfolio adjustments through more and more nav transfers from bond funds to equity funds. And, I did this for a good number of years. Now, in retirement I am doing less and less new purchases; however, I am moving a good bit of money from all equity funds to some hybrid type funds (over time) rather than to bond funds. I am wanting to grow my footprint in hybrid funds by about one percent per year while reducing all equity fund holdings by a like amount. Currently, about 20% of my portfolio is in cash and cds, about 10% in bond funds, about 45% in hybrid funds and the remaining 25%, or so, in equity funds. When Xrayed this produces an asset allocation of about 20+% cash, about 30% domestic equity, about 20% foreign equity, about 25% bonds and about 5% other. Notice I used the word "about" a good bit because the percentages are rounded to the nearest 5% whole number. As the equity allocation contines to grow I periodically rebalance and move some equity money to hybrid money through nav exchanges. In doing this the hybrid type funds generally have a broader investment universe that they can invest in over other fund types giving the hybird fund manager leadway within ranges, of course, to position into assets classes they feel will offer the better returns and/or offer a more complete investment package. This makes my overall portfolio more adaptive to the ever changing investment environment more automatic whether due to seasonal trends and/or investment activity in the markets by other investors relative to positioning.
For me, one of the better benefits for A share investors is the ability to do nav exchange transfers without paying additional sales charges. I believe the level load funds many classified as T shares do not offer the free nav exchange transfer option.
I hope this somewhat lengthy answer is helpful to understand how and why nav exchanges were made along with cost associated, for me, with these nav transfers.

This is going to be a hit or miss post, since I've been out and about traveling and won't be caught up for some time. Some offhand thoughts:
"If Bengen 'concluded that a 4% drawdown rate resulted in certain survival', he was wrong" and "The article is dominated by references to Wade Pfau observations. He too is a very strong advocate of Monte Carlo simulations to help arriving at retirement decisions. "
The NYTimes article has a graphic with three other spending models by Pfau. All three show 100% survival over thirty years (worst case shows money remaining for all models). That includes a model with a constant (inflation adjusted) drawdown amount.
Yet the simple Monte Carlo tools advocated (based on mean and standard deviation inputs) intrinsically contradict this - they are built on the premise that failure is always possible (since they say that a portfolio can lose value year after year after year after ...). Does that mean that Pfau, like Bengen, was also wrong in concluding certain survival?
A problem is that by design, these simple tools are unable to conclude that survival is certain. Regardless of inputs. If you build a conclusion (failure is always possible) into a tool, you've rigged the results. You can't use these tools to "prove" that 100% success is impossible. They're unable to say anything but.
It's fine to use random number generators (aka Monte Carlo) to "run" models many times and see what outcomes might result. The problem is not in how models are used (trial and error - random numbers), but with the models themselves. Unfortunately these tools conflate the creation of the models with the Monte Carlo running of the models to generate a range of possible outcomes. Don't confuse a criticism of these tools with a criticism of Monte Carlo simulations.
These tools create simplistic models that usually assume each year's market's performance is independent and that returns are normally distributed (bell curve).
But data suggest that stock market performance is a leading indicator of business cycles. Thus stock market performance is itself cyclic (not independent from year to year) albeit with an upward bias.
"stocks as a whole move in advance of the economy" = AAII Journal, Aug 2003
As to the bond market, the trivial Monte Carlo models assume that nominal returns are independent of inflation. The Fischer hypothesis suggests the opposite.
"The Fisher hypothesis is that, in the long run, inflation and nominal interest rates move together." http://moneyterms.co.uk/fisher-effect/
The first paragraph by Pfau in his Forbes column says that the models need to include correlations - something that's antithetic to simplistic free Monte Carlo tools that assume independence of inputs in building their models.
His penultimate paragraph states simply that: "the results of Monte Carlo simulations are only as good as the input assumptions, ... Monte Carlo simulations can be easily adjusted to account for changing realities for financial markets."
It's certainly easy from a mechanical perspective to adjust the models (e.g. by changing the mean return for bonds). What's not easy at all is figuring out what adjustments to make. That gets right back to the results being "only as good as the input assumptions", or as I wrote before, GIGO.
Again quoting Pfau: "Many financial planning assumptions are based on historical returns; however, these historical returns may not be relevant in the future."
https://www.onefpa.org/journal/Pages/MAR17-Planning-for-a-More-Expensive-Retirement.aspx
At best, even if a model is good and analysis sound, all you're going to get is a sense of whether you're saving enough (i.e. what MikeM wrote). It's of less help during retirement because, as hank noted, extraordinary events happen.
I'm wondering who the unnamed "professionals in this field" are. Or even what "this field" is. But for the record - I've never taken a statistics course in my life. I'm just an individual investor like most people here, albeit one who did once ace a course in writing and research.

That article starts out as a wonderful (too short) interview with Bob Rodriguez... all of which sets the reader up for a sucker-punch "plug piece" for index funds...
"All of this means that most investors should, in fact, own index funds"
Too bad the article writer had to stick in his index fundamentalism.
===
Skeet, I endorse your comments.
Anecdote: I distinctly recall at the turn of the century, investment advisors who administered my, and my spouse's employers' 401k plans, offered regular hosted lunches to 'educate' we simple employees on the plans. Invariably, the subject of asset allocation would arise. Just as invariably, they would recommend extraordinarily high (for my comfort level) equity allocations. And they kept doing so -- all the while the dot-com stocks ballooned, and when it burst.
Fast-forward.. My current employer 401k administrator (Voya) continues to recommend very high equity allocations. (Even though, their website knows I am a short 3 years away from an early retirement.)
These high-equity recommendations are the industry standard. And what amazes me, is that the equity allocation recommendations seem to deliberately ignore how cheap/expensive equities are. Valuations are not part of their allocation modeling. Bizarre! -- What other industry can you think of, where the price you pay is not factored into the purchasing decision?

Hi Guys,
Not saving whatsoever is a dangerous proposition.
Compromises often produce acceptable outcomes. It is not clear why some acceptable balance between a few luxury items and saving can not be reached. I suspect that most folks do this tradeoff frequently without giving it much thought.
My wife and I did so. We pretty much did what we wanted to do, and saved enough to enjoy a very comfortable retirement. Of course, the investments we made did help. Change that story and my current post would change substantially. Luck is always a major player.
Best Wishes

FYI: “I don’t want to invest money,” said the young, bearded schoolteacher. “Do you have a trust fund?” I asked. He said no. “Have you married a wealthy spouse, or perhaps someone who’s going to be eligible for a defined benefit pension?” He smiled and said no. It was a weird conversation, considering the venue.
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/why-you-shouldnt-bother-to-save-for-your-retirement

FYI: Q: I have seven mutual funds in my retirement savings account that invest in a broad range of stocks (large, mid-, small-caps, domestic and international) and bonds, plus real estate and gold. I'm now looking to add an eighth fund or ETF to my portfolio. Any recommendations?
A: I'm sure there are people out there who would be more than willing to point to all sorts of funds and ETFs you could add to your portfolio: smart beta funds, thematic ETFs, low volatility funds. There's even an ETF designed to capitalize on the ETF industry itself.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fidelity.com/insights/retirement/how-many-funds-to-diversify

"The referenced article is indeed excellent. That's why I posted it."
Nothing like modesty MJG. (And a reason some of us take umbrage with some of your posts).
MikeM termed the NYT article "very good". I termed it "good" - adding a reservation regarding source. I don't have time to enjoy the additional sources you've linked. I'm sure others will.
My contribution was mainly to show how each of us has a unique circumstance and unique needs in retirement planning. I shared more than I generally do in the hopes it might help others address their own varied needs. My purpose wasn't to support or condemn Monte Carlo. In fact, in my own case, I've run no simulations (other than in the back of my head from time to time). Period.
I'll defer to @msf on the overall merit and accuracy of the calculations presented by you and/or your sources. I've found his math skills over the years both considerable and commendable. By contrast, I barely survived high school Algebra with a C, and have assiduously avoided all math classes since.
Regards

Hi Hank,
Thanks for your most recent contribution. An honest post on a controversial topic is always appreciated. The referenced article is indeed excellent. That's why I posted it.
The article is dominated by references to Wade Pfau observations. He too is a very strong advocate of Monte Carlo simulations to help arriving at retirement decisions. These codes also do yeomen service when updating after the initial decision. Change happens. As I too frequently say: forecasting is hazardous duty.
Here is a Link to a Pfau article in which he discusses some of the advantages offered by Monte Carlo retirement planning tools:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadepfau/2016/06/13/the-advantages-of-monte-carlo-simulations/#68614c1a40c6
This article by Wade Pfau does an honest job at discussing both the merits and shortcomings of Monte Carlo simulators. The Pfau reference ends with the following paragraph:
"Overall, the advantages of Monte Carlo simulations likely more than make up for any deficiencies when compared to the results we obtain using historical simulations."
Since our debate over Monte Carlo codes has extracted some very emotional responses from the FMO membership, I'll take this opportunity to recommend yet another free Monte Carlo tool on the Internet. It is titled The Flexible Retirement Planner. Here is the Link to this superior tool:
http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/wp/
I have referenced this code in earlier posts. It is user friendly. I hope you visit this site and do a few experimental calculations. I believe you will be impressed with its speed and the options available on this site. Please give it a try. You will get a quick feeling for your portfolio survival prospects, especially given your concerns over uncertain market returns in coming decades.
That uncertainty is a reasonable concern. And that's exactly the type of problem Monte Carlo,codes were designed to address. In near zero time, you can explore a range of these uncertainties, and estimate their occurrence probabilities. Your portfolio asset allocations and spending profile can be adjusted to accommodate these uncertainties.
I hope this helps.
Best Wishes

Thanks @ Mike & Ol Skeet for getting this back on track. Agree it's a good article. I view most anything financial in the NYT times with a healthy dose of skeptism. They're great at a lot of things - but financial analysis and reporting isn't their forte. To the crux of the issue: I think where you run into problems is (1) trying to formulate a simple one size fits all approach to retirement drawdowns and/or (2) assuming the next 25 years will be like the last 25 years (interest rates, inflation, equity valuations, etc.).
I can't relate to the central question of how to survive "X" number of years on "X" number of dollars invested. Reason: I enjoy both a defined benefit pension with a partial COL rider and also a decent SS income stream. And, supplementary health insurance through retirement plan as well. Conceivably, these would provide for basic living expenses - though it would be a very "spartan" lifestyle without travel or other things that make retirement enjoyable.
In my highly atypical instance, even after taking distributions, retirement savings have roughly doubled over the nearly 20 years since retirement (albeit in nominal dollar terms only). At the same time, more than half of that has now been placed under the Roth umbrella, whereas at the time of retirement none was. Much of the reason for the increase is that the money was left largely undisturbed during the first 10 years.
As far as the article's mention that withdrawals are not linear or equal every year - I couldn't agree more. There have been years when I needed to take a larger sum - say as a sizable down payment on a new car or for unexpected home repairs - and other years when I've needed very little.
I don't envy those without a pension or other solid income stream in retirement. Not everyone would be satisfied with a somewhat spartan lifestyle either. As I look at the markets over the past 10-20 years, I'd not be eager risking a large retirement nest egg with an aggressive approach in retirement. Lots of warning signs IMHO. But, no one really knows. As I said at the start, the problem with these mathematical models is that the next 25 years could be markedly different than the last 25 - as others, notably msf, have tried to explain.

FWIW, getting back to the article, I thought it was very good. Basically, there are a whole lot of systems out there other than the strict, yet simple 4% rule. Some strategies give greater assurances then others for your money lasting through-out your retirement years. But no matter which you choose, there will always be risk of dying with only government assistance or being too frugal as to not enjoy retirement to it's fullest.
@CecilJK , thank you for contributing your system. I'd like to hear from others on their approach. Obviously there is no one way to do it. The ability or planned 'cushion' that would allow one to be flexible appears to be key.
As for Monte Carlo, I don't know a better, easier method that suggests if you are on tract with your savings versus retirement spending expectations. Is there one? There are no guarantees, but Monte Carlo at least supplies guidelines and gives at the very least, a ball park view.

Hi Guys,
Not a totally unexpected attack from a trio of MFOers who often submit Ad Hominem posts directed to discredit me. That troubles me not one iota. The more they protest, the more I suspect I'm making some positive inroads.
I certainly do not apologize for my commitment to Monte Carlo analyses. I profitably used Monte Carlo analyses when working as a research engineer. When I was considering my retirement in the early 1990s, I could not find an operational Monte Carlo code dedicated to retirement planning analyses. With help from Bill Sharpe and Gene Fama,who sent market data sets and volunteered some suggestions, I wrote my own Monte Carlo code. I used that tool in making my retirement decision. It helped.
These guys protest much to much, and accuse me without knowing me or my capabilities. Their ranting polemics say much more about them than about me. They are small men!
I will continue my march. Monte Carlo is not for everyone, but MFOers should be made aware that the code is freely available and is a candidate to add to your investment toolbox. As always, it is your free and informed choice.
Best Wishes

"My goal was not to tout Mr. Bengen, but much more importantly, to encourage you Guys to try a powerful Monte Carlo simulation for planning purposes."
To that end, you cited one of the most well known papers on retirement planning as evidence of how well Monte Carlo works, even though it didn't use Monte Carlo. I pointed out that Bengen found zero real world return patterns where a 4% drawdown would fail (over 30 years); your response was to disparage the original work you cited approvingly.
It's enough to make one wonder whether you read the paper.
Instead of comparing and contrasting methodologies, you continue to effuse about Monte Carlo. Bergen took a different approach using using actual returns, that virtually everyone here can understand and use to draw their own conclusions.
In contrast, Monte Carlo spews out magic numbers (not unlike M* star ratings) that leave one to one's own devices to interpret. As guidance you proffer that you consider a 5% risk acceptable, but you didn't give any reasoning, rendering this fact useless. (I wonder why you used these 30 year projections at all; as I recall you've indicated an age which suggests that a 30 year horizon is, shall we say, rather optimistic.)
Even the probabilities posted are meaningless because unlike Bengen, you didn't state the assumptions you used, such as the input values for mean and standard deviations of stocks, bonds, and inflation. Nor did you even apply the same asset allocation that Bengen used.
Did you consider skew and kurtosis (the S&P 500 exhibits both)? Do you think that most people using these "push a button" tools even understand that question? (No disrespect of MFO readers is intended; many have stated that statistics is not their forte.)
The fact that a program can do thousands of computations in seconds is not so much a demonstration of the usefulness of a program as much as it is a testament to the operation of GIGO. A scalpel is a great tool in the right hands; in other hands it can be destructive.
When all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.