Just fyi, QLENX is ntf at Fidelity, but it also has a slightly higher E.R. than QLEIX. You can get either of them at Fido with a $2,500 initial investment in an IRA; the minimums Kevin mentioned are for group retirement plans, according to the "fees and distributions" pages.

@JoJo26:
QLEIX and QLENX are available in Fidelity retirement accounts for $100K and $500 minimums, respectively, with a TF.
@msf:
I totally agree with your assessment of the ER. That is why I have been advocating for years that M* report on the fund's front page the actual expense ratio that investors will be paying, as detailed in the prospectus. In this case, the actual ER of 1.87% should be reported on the fund's front page. And notice that this 1.87% figure doesn't even appear in the expense breakdown for the fund. M* could report this accurate ER but chooses to not do so, likely to favor fund managements over investors. M* could and should do better.
Kevin

March 9, 2009 at 3:59 PM
In response to Ted's revision, I too am revising my response.
I hope I didn't sound like a smart ass, but the subtle message embedded in my terse reply above is that the best time to invest is when things are cheap. So you easily could have bought twice as much of the S&P for the same amount of money back in '09 as today.
A second message meant to be conveyed is that markets are impossible to predict.
That said, all of the other responses are well considered and should be helpful to you. Had you included factors like age, years to retirement, and personal disposition towards risk, it would have helped in suggesting appropriate allocations and methods of deploying your cash.
Regards

Hi Guys,
This post simply adds more grist to the Indexing mill.
Many other posts that address this debate have appeared on MFO recently. Here is an internal Link to one of my more recent contributions to this matter:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/29128/attacking-active-fund-managers-yet-again
Like Ted, although I'm fully fimilar with the primary arguements that tilt towards an Index portfolio, my portfolio is a mix of both passive and active products. I like the excitement.
Over many decades, Ellis has advocated an Index approach. Nothing new there. But I did learn something new from the referenced video. I had never heard of comparing a bond with an expected lifetime earning income. Taken the validity of that analogy, Ellis concludes that a portfolio should only have a very lightweight commitment to a bond component.
I'm a natural for an Index portfolio. I don't wake up worrying the stock market. Stock price volatility doesn't influence my decisions whatsoever. I don't know the current value of my portfolio. I'll check its value once a year to determine what my minimum required withdrawal rate demands in terms of action.
I satisfy the Ellis definition and model of a very, very long-term investor. Nothing much troubles me. I prepared well for my and my wife's retirement years.
Best Wishes.

FYI: Last week, yet another slew of private retirement plan managers became the target of class-action lawsuits. This time it was a bunch of universities: Yale University, New York University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other schools have been sued for failing to properly oversee their employees’ retirement plans.
The lawyer behind the suits, Jerome Schlichter, has already hit companies for failing to administer their 401(k) plans responsibly; this latest wave of suits targets the so-called 403(b), a form of defined contribution plan used by non-profits like universities that closely resembles the 401(k).
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthmanagement.com/print/retirement-planning/conflict-heart-us-retirement-plans
InvestmentNews Article:
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160818/FREE/160819927?template=printart

I hope this happens for sure boss.
Mr. Weddle said the transition will likely affect the firm’s revenue negatively, but said it is too early to guess the extent as it will depend on how clients decide to proceed with their retirement account.
Also said rule change will not affect variable annuities.

FYI: Edward Jones unveiled how it will serve retirement savers in light of new federal rules governing brokers, showing it will curtail mutual-fund access for retirement savers in accounts that charge commissions and slash investment minimums on others
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/edward-jones-shakes-up-retirement-offerings-ahead-of-fiduciary-rule-1471469692

@MFO: Members From the Mairs & Power Website:
Regards,
Ted
Mairs & Power's Small Cap Fund Closes to New Investors
Announcement - August 15, 2016
After careful deliberation, Mairs & Power has decided to close the Small Cap Fund (MSCFX/ the "Fund") to new investors effective as of the close of business on September 30, 2016 (the "Closing Date"). The Fund will remain open to investment by existing shareholders, existing Mairs & Power private clients, retirement plans with an existing agreement and new or existing clients of an individual financial adviser representative with pre-existing investments in the Fund.
Mairs & Power Growth Fund (MPGFX) and Mairs & Power Balanced Fund (MAPOX) remain open to new investors.
"With our disciplined, low turnover and long-term investment approach, we hold relatively concentrated positions in a carefully selected portfolio of companies. This strategy means that we manage our asset base carefully," said Mark Henneman, Chief Investment Officer of Mairs & Power, Inc. (the "Adviser"). "We manage capacity for each of our Funds individually, taking a conservative approach that considers, among other factors, total assets under management, the rate of asset growth and the availability of securities that meet the Funds' investment objectives."
"We beleive this decision is in the best long-term interest of the Small Cap Fund's existing shareholders, as it allows us to maintain stable and balanced growth with the Fund. We remain confident in our ability to continue to find attrative investment opportunites within the small cap universe and we reamin committed to protecting the interests of our Fund's shareholders. This soft close demonstrates that commitment," said Andrew Adams, lead portfolio manager of the Mairs & Power Small Cap Fund.
Launched in 2011, the Small Cap Fund has experienced significant, but manageable, asset flows. The Fund's performance success over one-, three-, and five-year periods led to strong asset growth from both existing and new investors. While this growth has not impacted the Adviser's ability to implement the Fund's stated investment strategy, the decision to close the Fund at this time followed careful deliberation and discussion on how best to serve the interests of existing shareholders by managing asset growth.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1521353/000089418916011080/mpft_497e.htm
497 1 mpft_497e.htm SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration No. 333-174574
MAIRS & POWER FUNDS TRUST
(the “Trust”)
Mairs & Power Small Cap Fund
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated August 15, 2016
to the Prospectus, the Summary Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information
dated April 30, 2016
Effective as of the close of business on September 30, 2016 (the “Closing Date”), the Fund will be closed to most new investors. Mairs & Power, Inc., the investment adviser to the Fund (the “Adviser”) believes that limiting investment in the Fund will help ensure that the Fund can be effectively managed in accordance with its stated investment objective. The closing is intended to promote long-term investments in the Fund, thereby contributing to a more stable asset base and the continued efficient management of the Fund. This decision was made after considering the current size of the Fund (approximately $274 million as of July 31, 2016) and the availability of common stocks of small cap companies that meet the Fund’s investment criteria.
Only investors of the Fund as of the Closing Date, whether owning shares directly through the Fund’s transfer agent or through a bank, broker-dealer, financial adviser or recordkeeper (“Financial Intermediary”), are eligible to purchase shares of the Fund. The Fund will continue to permit the following types of investments in the Fund:
· Investments by new or existing clients of an individual financial adviser representative who already had client assets invested in the Fund on the Closing Date;
· Additional share purchases or reinvestment of dividends or capital gains by existing Fund shareholders;
· Investments made through qualified retirement plans (such as 401(a), 401(k) and other defined contribution plans and defined benefit plans) for which the Fund is an eligible investment alternative and whose records are maintained by a Financial Intermediary having an agreement with the Fund in effect on or before the Closing Date;
· Investments by a Trustee or officer of the Trust, an employee of the Adviser, a member of the immediate family of any of those persons, or clients of the Adviser; and
· An investment that officers of the Trust determine, in their sole discretion, would not adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund effectively.
The Fund may ask you to verify that you meet one of the guidelines above prior to permitting you to open a new account in the Fund. The Fund reserves the right to prohibit a transaction otherwise permitted if the Fund believes doing so to be in the Fund’s best interest. In addition, the Fund reserves the right, at any time, in its sole discretion, to further modify or amend the extent to which the future sales of shares are limited.
For additional information regarding restrictions on new purchases of shares of the Fund, please contact the Fund at 1-800-304-7404 (toll free).
Investors should retain this supplement for future reference.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1558107/000104916916000045/sticker-cuppsallcapgrowthfun.htm
497 1 sticker-cuppsallcapgrowthfun.htm
ALPS SERIES TRUST
CUPPS ALL CAP GROWTH FUND AND CUPPS MID CAP GROWTH FUND
Supplement dated August 9, 2016 to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated January 28, 2016 and as supplemented on June 28, 2016, for the Cupps All Cap Growth Fund and Cupps Mid Cap Growth Fund, series of ALPS Series Trust (the “Trust”)
On August 9, 2016, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Trust, based upon the recommendation of Cupps Capital Management, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Cupps All Cap Growth Fund and the Cupps Mid Cap Growth Fund (the “Funds”), series of the Trust, determined to close and liquidate the Funds. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders that the Funds be closed and liquidated as series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on August 31, 2016.
The Board approved a Plan of Termination, Dissolution and Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Funds will be liquidated.
Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Funds’ liquidation, the Cupps All Cap Growth Fund will be closed to new purchases effective as of the close of business on August 9, 2016. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of the Fund after August 9, 2016, and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on August 31, 2016 will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Funds unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases as of August 9, 2016, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Fund after August 9, 2016, as provided in the Prospectus. Please note, however, that the Fund will be liquidating its assets as of the close of business on August 31, 2016.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on August 31, 2016, the effective time of the liquidation, your shares will be redeemed, and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund as of August 31, 2016, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax adviser for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
Shares of the Cupps Mid Cap Growth Fund have not previously been made available to the public.
All expenses incurred in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Plan, other than the brokerage commissions associated with the sale of portfolio securities, will be paid by the Adviser.
Please retain this supplement with your Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.

It is very simple, I am currently not buying new equity positions or adding to any existing positions at these high P/E multiples. I have been rebalancing my portfolio as the stock markets reaches new highs thus keeping equities towards their low range within my asset allocation. Should we get a near term pullback I'll load equities during the pullback and then trim my allocation in equities as they recover.

Hard to disagree with any of this. You make some great points.
- I would not start new equity positions or add to existing ones at such lofty levels.
- Rebalancing is a good way to add to underperforming assets and cull your winners. Not everyone will agree, but I like this approach. As we are well into the distribution phase in our retirement years, "rebalancing" is most often achieved by selling off some of the better performing assets when we take a distribution.
- Sharp pullbacks are a good time to put lower yielding fixed-income assets to work in riskier areas.
I'll make a distinction, however, between rebalancing and trying to time the markets based on valuations, seasonality, Fed policy, elections, macroeconomics, etc. I'm not necessarily opposed to the second, but it is much more difficult to pull-off successfully and consistently, I think, than merely rebalancing.
Thanks for sharing @randynevin and @Skeet.

Edmond , I don't see the robo portfolios as being a robo "adviser". They are set up to look fairly generally to your "long term" goals. They are set up to have decent relative returns over a market cycle with less volatility due to diversification. They questionnaire use general questions on risk, age and time horizon and output a general portfolio allocation. You don't have to use that suggested allocation though. I didn't. I used personal 1 on 1 advice that looked at all assets of savings, social security and pensions. The portfolio was adjusted based on that input.
I worked with a local Schwab adviser to look at longer term retirement needs. The 60% equity portfolio I chose fit my long term goals considering other assets not in that retirement account. The portfolio ETF selections were robo, but it is still important to get advice that looks at the whole.

Selling OAKBX was good for my portfolio. M* had this to say about the fund very recently:
"Silver-rated Oakmark Equity & Income (OAKBX) has had only middling results since Ed Studzinski retired in late 2011…"
At the time of Mr. Studzinski's retirement, I commented here that I thought Oakmark was not "transparent" (to use some jargon) about the management change. I believe others have noted unusual manager changes at the company (Rob Taylor, for example).
Now with Mr. Studzinski writing about the MF industry on our side of the street with more-than-healthy skepticism, I'm glad my previous decisions to sell several Oakmark funds were not wrong-headed.

For pre-retirees who do not have a public pension, any effort to eliminate debt service prior to retirement will only enhance retirement cash flow. There are some for whom this strategy doesn't matter. Their cash flow will be more than sufficient anyway. But for most of us, entering retirement with cash flow needs slashed by one-third or more can be life saving.

Thanks for your replies. The bench mark used by 401-k was Dow Jones target .... Index.
Checked on another 401-k & it was using 70% Barclays US Gov/Credit Interm TR USD & 30% S&P TR USD for VTINX , (target date retirement income). % changed as target date was increased. I'll check out other retirement funds & see how they performed.
Derf

@DanHardy
Yes, relative to new and future retirees. If the 10 year moves sideways from this point in a narrow channel for yield; total return (which includes price movement) would be muted.
Any search for yield must be carefully weighed against from where the yield arrives and why; as well as what circumstances going forward will alter the yield.
Not unlike today and U.S. investment grade bond yields; I'm not concentrated upon the fact that the yield continues to move lower, as the underlying price performance is far out pacing the yield.
At this time our house is not chasing any yield for income, but yield (downward) for price performance.
Total return on any given investment, while attempting to prevent loss of capital continues as our primary focus.
Sideways movement of pricing for any investment is a possibility for extended periods of time. So, those expecting and wanting performance from equity investments can also get stuck in sideways price movements. Obviously, total return becomes diminished, regardless of the investment area.
Retirees who have chosen to not be involved with investments in the stock/bond markets find themselves stuck with the choice of a CD or similar. We know what these returns will be at this time. Annuities currently are unable to offer returns of consequence (although some folks might find other aspects appealing).
Pension funds and some large institutions are looking everywhere to provide for their future needs. Many of these organizations have finally begun to pull away from the fancy hedge fund promises and fees. The "alt" investments folks are also clawing to prove they know what their doing with "other peoples money". The enormous California retirement fund reported a "year to year" (June 30) total return of .62%. Batman would surely do a "holy crap" for this folly.
Central banks globally continue to "play". Bank of Japan recently did not further reduce bond yields with market intervention, but expanded their ability to purchase Japanese market etf's (equity) specifically designed for the Bank of Japan to purchase. The ECB, among other ongoing purchases is also purchasing eurozone corporate bonds. I have no idea with what our Federal Reserve is involved within the market place.
Gotta go help at high school band camp.
Most interesting times continue.....
Catch

Thanks @msf- the AC accounts are all non-retirement, so moving cash isn't a big deal. The American Funds accounts are a mix of IRA & non-retirement, so some navigation room is available there also.

Depending on our client risk levels and goals, and tax situation, we will use a few of these: MALOX, RPGAX, RIBIX, WASIX. For higher-tax-bracket people, these are best used in retirement accounts. As for FPCAX, not only has the performance really lagged, but the high cash position, as another poster noted, is part of the expense ratio. For us, it is almost a no-brainer to move elsewhere.

I'm not sure whether Bob intended to list RPGAX as a Multi Asset Income Fund or not. Possibly, I'm misreading the thread.
As a bleeding heart liberal on most matters, I'll concede that RPGAX could be considered an income fund. Price appears to consider it more of a balanced fund: "Under normal conditions, the fund’s portfolio will consist of approximately 60% stocks; 30% bonds, money market securities, and other debt instruments; and 10% alternative investments." (Source: T. Rowe Price)
M* classifies it as Global Allocation and Lipper puts it in their Flexible Portfolio category.
I own a bit and include it alongside DODBX in my balanced area. In good times it will likely lag DODBX. But I suspect it will hold up better in bad times. The 10% in Blackstone's fund of hedge funds should help in tougher markets. We'll see on that one. (No snickers from audience please) :)

Depending on our client risk levels and goals, and tax situation, we will use a few of these: MALOX, RPGAX, RIBIX, WASIX. For higher-tax-bracket people, these are best used in retirement accounts. As for FPCAX, not only has the performance really lagged, but the high cash position, as another poster noted, is part of the expense ratio. For us, it is almost a no-brainer to move elsewhere.

Re: "Savings to the underlying funds are expected to result primarily from the elimination of numerous separate shareholder accounts which are or would have been invested directly in the underlying funds and the resulting reduction in shareholder servicing costs. Although such cost savings are not certain, the estimated savings to the underlying funds generated by the operation of the Retirement Funds are expected to be sufficient to offset most, if not all, of the expenses incurred by the Retirement Funds."
MSF: Wow. Nice find! Apparently that's what I remember seeing. Not what I had long assumed. Still helps explain why their allocation funds are a better deal for investors than many others which do level allocation or administration fees.
As for TRRIX not being invested in any institutional class shares, don't be too sure. It does have a 20.3% weighting in PRCIX, Price's New Income Fund. PRCIX in turn holds institutional class shares in two other T. Rowe Price funds: Floating Rate and High Yield. In addition, both TRRIX and PRICX have the ability to invest in Summit Cash Reserves (not institutional - but having a $25,000 minimum) although they appear to have only trace exposure to that fund at present.
Thanks for your input. Interesting.
-
PS: Re TRPTX - I like that one better. .47% ER and invested in institutional shares. But can't quite afford the $1 mil minimum. :)