https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/826732/000119312516640530/d221359d497.htm
497 1 d221359d497.htm 497
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
File Nos. 033-19228 and 811-05443
CALAMOS® INVESTMENT TRUST
Supplement dated July 1, 2016 to the CALAMOS® FAMILY OF FUNDS Summary Prospectuses for Class A, B and C and Class I and R of Calamos Mid Cap Growth Fund both dated February 29, 2016, the Summary Prospectuses for Class A and C and Class I and R of Calamos Discovery Growth Fund, both dated February 29, 2016, Prospectuses for Class A, B and C and Class I and R, both dated February 29, 2016, as supplemented on March 14, 2016 and on June 10, 2016, and the Statement of Additional Information dated February 29, 2016, as supplemented on March 14, 2016 and on June 10, 2016.
The Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses and Statements of Additional Information for the Calamos Investment Trust (the “Trust”) are hereby supplemented. The following information supersedes any information to the contrary regarding the Calamos Discovery Growth Fund and Calamos Mid Cap Growth Fund (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”) each a series of the Trust, contained in the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses and Statements of Additional Information:
The Funds will be liquidated on or about October 6, 2016 (the “Liquidation Date”).
Effective August 1, 2016, the Funds will stop accepting purchases from new investors and existing shareholders,
except that defined contribution retirement plans that hold Fund shares as of July 1, 2016 may continue to purchase Fund shares through September 29, 2016 and existing shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions received from the Funds through September 29, 2016. The Funds reserve the right to modify the extent to which sales of shares are limited prior to a Fund’s liquidation. After the close of business on the Liquidation Date, the Funds will liquidate any remaining shareholder accounts and will send shareholders the proceeds of the liquidation.
Each Fund intends to declare and pay any dividends required to distribute its investment company taxable income, net capital gains, and net tax-exempt income accrued in the Fund’s taxable year ending at to the Liquidation Date or any in any prior taxable year in which the Fund is eligible to declare and pay a dividend. These dividends will be taxable to shareholders who do not hold their shares in a tax-advantaged account such as an IRA or 401(k). You should check with your investment professional and tax professional regarding the potential impact of the Funds’ liquidation to your individual financial plan and tax situation.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of a Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth under the section “How can I sell (redeem) shares?” in the Prospectus, as supplemented. Shareholders may also exchange their shares, subject to the restrictions on exchanges as described under the section “How can I sell (redeem) shares? — By exchange” in the Prospectus, as supplemented. Any such redemption or exchange of a Fund’s shares for shares of another fund will generally be considered a taxable event for federal income tax purposes. Shareholders who hold their shares in a Fund through a financial intermediary should contact their financial representative to discuss their options with respect to the liquidation and the distribution of such shareholders’ redemption proceeds.
Subsequent to the liquidation of the Funds, all references to the Funds in each Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information are hereby removed.
Please retain this supplement for future reference
MFSPT3 07/16

Puddn,
In retirement I am a big believer in serious simplifying and in true diversification. Nothing wrong with leaving as is. But if you backtest and compare 2/3/5/7/10y, and more, you may see that your diversification spirit has not really added much (if any) value.
I did not mention FLPSX, NICSX, or AKREX in lieu of GLBRX plus augmenting existing bond funds because I didn't want to add good MC choices; I think there is too much of that going-overboard 'add' spirit going around.
For example, I bet there is a lot of bond overlap w Vang, Pimco, DoubleL, and James.
PRBLX is not really narrow; again, look at what 40 or so good LC stocks has gotten you historically compared with 500.
You may have sleep@night and obsessing factors involved, of course; I do. But I am trying to boil my holdings down to DSEEX and PONDX, and some RE, with a little fooling around on the side in SC, MC, and foreign funds. Plus some foolish individual loser stocks.

It's hard to make constructive suggestions without knowing more about your situation...
What percentage you plan to draw (and will SS kick in before or after you start, which could affect weightings), are you looking to leave an estate (which would argue for more equity, since that's invested for a longer lifetime), etc.?
So here are a few comments and observations on the edges:
- This is weighted about 50/50 - including 30% in equity funds, 40% in Wellesley (1/3 equity), 20% in Golden Rainbow (1/2 equity). Might be okay for a shorter time frame portfolio, but for 30+ years, a tad more equities might be in order, especially given the low yields in bonds now and likely for several years.
- It's somewhat light on foreign exposure (about 8% of portolio), though not exceedingly so (i.e. as a percentage of equity, it's about 1/6).
- The domestic funds are very diversified (except PRBLX), while the international holdings are highly concentrated (28 stocks in Lazard, 32 in FMI). Intentional or an artifact of the fund selection?
- Share classes. If you're buying through Fidelity (a reasonable guess, given two Fidelity funds), you might look at buying the TF institutional share classes. Especially for a retirement portfolio which you expect to be selling off (no fees). That saves you a lot in fees over the years.
Specifically: DBLTX ($5K min in an IRA), and if you've got over $250K in your portfolio (total), GLRIX ($50K min = 20% of $250K portfolio).
If you're not averse to having investments in multiple places, you could buy VWIAX directly from Vanguard ($50K min = 40% of a $125K portfolio). Scottrade appears to give you access (with $17 TF) to PIMIX with a $100 (not $100K) min.
Just some minor thoughts. All in all, a nice portfolio.

I wonder if you guys could give some advice about this preliminary portfolio. I'm trying to draw one up for retirement.....it's still some time off......but I could use some more perspective and ideas on this. I would like to keep the number of funds down to a dozen or less, if I could:
VWINX - 40%
GLRBX - 20%
PONDX - 5%
DLTNX - 5%
FUSVX - 10%
PRBLX - 5%
FSCRX - 5%
GLFOX - 5%
FMIJX - 5%
What would you change? Funds? Percentages? Or both???
God bless
the Pudd

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580216000166/stickerpathwayfundsliquidati.htm
497 1 stickerpathwayfundsliquidati.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
PATHWAY ADVISORS AGGRESSIVE GROWTH FUND
PATHWAY ADVISORS CONSERVATIVE FUND
Supplement dated June 20, 2016
to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated August 31, 2015,
for the Pathway Advisors Aggressive Growth Fund and Pathway Advisors Conservative Fund,
each a series of Financial Investors Trust (the “Trust”)
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Trust, based upon the recommendation of Hanson McClain, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Pathway Advisors Aggressive Growth Fund and Pathway Advisors Conservative Fund (the “Funds”), each a series of the Trust, has determined to close and liquidate the Funds. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of each Fund and its shareholders that such Fund be closed and liquidated as series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on July 15, 2016.
The Board approved a Plan of Termination, Dissolution and Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which each Fund will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of each Fund’s liquidation, each Fund will be closed to new shareholder purchases effective as of the close of business on June 30, 2016 and closed to all existing shareholder purchases on July 5, 2016. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of a Fund after June 30, 2016, and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on July 15, 2016 will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although each Fund will be closed to any new purchases as of July 5, 2016, you may continue to redeem your shares of a Fund after July 5, 2016, as provided in the Prospectus. Please note, however, that each Fund will be liquidating its assets as of the close of business on July 15, 2016.
Pursuant to the Plan, if a Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on July 15, 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 July 15, 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.
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.

What caught my attention in the article was the combo:
John Hancock-sponsored plan charged asset management fees of 1.69 percent
JH is an insurance company; it is selling annuities as retirement plans ((all the footnotes on the 401(k) page describe annuities).
http://www.johnhancock.com/products/401k.html
The annuity wrapper fees are used to get the participants to pay all the fees for administering the plan. That's so the employer doesn't pay a share of the fees, which makes it an easy sale to employers, especially small ones.
Watch carefully, and you'll see that 1.69% is exclusive of funds' ERs (i.e. asset management fees).

Mostly old news here but I'm hoping Ted will be on the lookout for an Oliver amusing video to follow. Now I have to go find and watch the one on 'medical debt'. Is it just me or is this guy one of the funniest comics going.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/john-oliver-says-retirement-savings-133039903.html

FYI: This summer marks the 10th anniversary of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA)—landmark legislation designed to enhance workers’ retirement security—being passed into law. Coinciding with this milestone, Vanguard today released a special 15th anniversary edition of its How America Saves report with findings that reflect the impact of the law on improving plan construction and participant investing behaviors in defined contribution plans over the past decade.
How America Saves, Vanguard’s comprehensive annual defined contribution report, has become a premier source of 401(k) data and serves as a resource to Vanguard plan sponsor clients and the industry at large as a plan benchmarking tool. First published in 2000, the report is based on 1,900 plans and 3.9 million participants.
Regards,
Ted
https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/HAS2016_Final.pdf

re. JPM Core Bond and @Ace concern:

Swanson’s announcement in September that he was taking a leave was the first public sign of tension in the Columbus operations. It followed the departure of three members of his team for outside opportunities or other areas within the bank. [...] Then, two months ago, senior money managers, Henry Song and Mark Jackson, quit. Chris Nauseda, who was part of the Core Bond fund and was with the firm for 35 years, plans to retire by July 1

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-03/jpmorgan-exits-mount-from-a-star-bond-team-said-to-feel-slighted
@BobC With due respect to our newest BD member, can you really say what you have with WOBDX/PGBOX anymore? Frankly, if Doug Swanson and top team managers were to walk on me, my money would leave the fund on the following day. I certainly wouldn't be putting money into it. Just as if Dan Fuss announced his retirement (effective immediately), and Elaine Stokes went on leave the month following ("to spend more time with her family"), and Matt Egan resigned (for a professional opportunity at another firm), leaving money in LSBDX would seem to be uninformed by history.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580216000164/stickerstonebridgeliquidatio.htm
497 1 stickerstonebridgeliquidatio.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
STONEBRIDGE SMALL-CAP GROWTH FUND
Supplement dated June 8, 2016
to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated August 31, 2015,
for the Stonebridge Small-Cap Growth Fund,
a series of Financial Investors Trust (the “Trust”)
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Trust, based upon the resignation of Stonebridge Capital Management, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Stonebridge Small-Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust, has determined to close and liquidate the Fund. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed and liquidated as series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on June 27, 2016.
The Board approved a Plan of Termination, Dissolution and Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Fund will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Fund’s liquidation, the Fund will be closed to new purchases effective as of the close of business on June 8, 2016. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of the Fund after June 8, 2016, and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on June 27, 2016 will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases as of June 8, 2016, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Fund after June 8, 2016, as provided in the Prospectus. Please note, however, that the Fund will be liquidating its assets as of the close of business on June 27, 2016.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on June 27, 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 June 27, 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.
All expenses incurred in connection with the liquidation contemplated by the Plan will be paid by the Fund, and are estimated to be approximately $13,000.
Please retain this supplement with your Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
A lawsuit filed recently against Fidelity Investments, the largest record keeper of defined contribution plans in the U.S., highlights the growing scrutiny on 401(k) plan costs and increased need for retirement plan advisers to evaluate all tranches of fees paid to plan providers
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160606/FREE/160609945?template=printart

I am making some LC (domestic) changes in one of my kids' retirement accounts. I have finally given up on the Yackts after many years of significant underperformance, and am also going to sell a large percentage of her FLVCX. She has held both for some time. Account is with Fido, so am considering adding to her PRBLX and also buying DVY and maybe some HDV. Thoughts, general or specific? She has good amounts in good small and mid funds, plus some (disappointing) foreign.

Did I read you right, that you want to use muni bonds in IRAs? Some custodians won't even allow this. For example, Fidelity does, but not online:
"The security you are attempting to trade is a tax-free mutual fund. Retirement accounts are prevented from buying or exchanging into tax-free mutual funds through the electronic channels. "
That said, given your last comment ("MUB might be the way for lowest risk"), I would also ask what you are looking for in terms of risk/reward. If you're even comparing MUB with junk bond funds, then it may be that you're not comfortable enough with junk. I find that over the long term the volatility doesn't matter (to me), but each person has his own comfort levels and objectives.
Bonds (and bond funds) are at one level pretty simple vehicles. As quality goes down, risk and reward go up. (If one wants to minimize this type of risk, one can stick with investment grade funds). As duration goes up, risk and reward go up.
Quality and duration, along with cost, are the three main levers. These levers determine the vast majority of a vanilla fund's performance. You pick the risk level and source of risk you want and then go fund a low cost fund matching that. Sure issue selection matters, especially with junk, but broad diversification can paper over a lot of problems there.
To make things interesting, let me toss in another fund - one that isn't classified as high yield - BCHYX. It's a single state junk bond fund. But given that the state's California, (with an economy approaching the size of the UK's), you still get a fair amount of diversification. Also, the fund fits midway between your two other funds.
The three funds are all BB rated by M*, with the longest duration fund (NHMAX, 10 years) having a disasterous 2008 and a spectacular 2009, not surprisingly. BCHYX's duration is in the middle (7.8 years) with 1, 3, and 10 year performance in the middle. DVHIX with its shorter duration (6 years) tends to give a smoother and more muted performance. All of these are still much longer than MUB's 4.7 years, if you're focused on minimizing interest rate risk.
I have a hard time with bond funds, especially munis, that have ERs over 0.50%. High ER and long duration would be my concerns with NHMAX. For an index fund, one hopes to do better on cost, but HYMB barely beats this target with 0.45% ER. Nevertheless it gets you higher quality bonds (BBB), albeit still with a somewhat long duration (8.2 years).
HYD does better on cost (0.35%), but still at the longer end of duration (8.7 years), and appears to have the lowest quality portfolio (eyeballing its fact sheet).
If you really want junk and also want to dial down risk, look for funds with BB or better credit and shorter durations. The obvious choice if you want to have a "high yield" muni fund with training wheels (that's not a pejorative, just a colorful description) is VWAHX/VWALX.

Hard to argue with the low yield in US and Japanese bonds, and in some case negative yield in European bonds. All the QE around the globe is not helping for those who need income in their retirement.

Here's another article, this one with a paragraph explaining the argument behind the brokerage window complaint. That is, by selecting available funds, Fidelity is allegedly exercising discretionary authority which makes it a fiduciary and not merely an order taker (brokerage gofer).
It also contains a link to the actual filing (hosted by Bloomberg).
http://www.bna.com/fidelity-faces-erisa-n57982072865/
I'm more interested in the brokerage window complaint. What Fidelity is doing is providing access to a retail brokerage account to 401(k) participants.
Since Fidelity is using its own brokerage (and benefiting from that), it has to be careful about self-dealing. But since it's providing access to an off-the-shelf brokerage account competitive with those of Schwab, TDA, etc. that doesn't seem to be a problem.
The complaint also, um, complains about Fidelity not selling the cheapest share classes for some funds. That's a retail account for you. It is true (as stated in the complaint) that Fidelity aggregates the shares of a fund owned by all its customers (an omnibus account). That's what gives it access to institutional share classes (with TF).
I suspect that this part of the complaint will be dismissed. Alternatively, if the ruling is for the participants, then would it also affect non-window retail accounts? After all, there's no fundamental difference in the way these retail accounts function depending on whether they are retirement plan windows or taxable accounts.
Finally, the complaint is worth reading for Table 1 on p. 15. (Just look for something in color). It shows (for 2009) the fees that funds paid to be sold by Fidelity. The median and mode was 35 basis points; some funds paid as much as 55 basis points. I didn't know the fees went that high.

Hi Guys,
In the referenced article, The Economist reports that the tide has finally turned in terms of active fund management. Active fund management is losing market share. It’s about time! It has been statistically established that professional money managers have been swimming naked for a long time.
Yes there are a few rare exceptions, but the bulk of the money management community have indeed generated excessive royal rewards for themselves, but not much for their customers, either individually or institutionally. It is common knowledge that passive Index investing has left these experts high and dry on the beach of under-delivered promises.
These experts promise excess returns (Alpha) over benchmarks and do not produce. In any given year 50% to 70% do not match their benchmarks; when the measurement timeframe expands to multiple years that underperformance increases to the 80% to 90% level. That’s true even in the Emerging markets sector where these guys are supposedly at an advantage. That’s a sad record.
It’s not that these experts have not had an opportunity to display their talents. Aggressive active investment organizations that were established to specifically service institutions (like company retirement funds) were assembled in the 1960s. According to some industry historians, these newly formed firms were motivated by the success of the Dreyfus Lion prowling out of the New York subway exit. Dreyfus was attracting tons of money.
In those days, individual investors did 90% of the trading activity; today, a few giant money management firms do 90% of that trading. At a minimum, these experts interact to cancel any of each other’s perceived investment insights and/or tactics. In fact, any such insights are more than neutralized by their operational cost drags.
Most money managers fail to satisfy their extravagant promises by not meeting their benchmark goals. Integrating globally, the active money managers who are on the negative side of the measurement criteria lose more on a percentage basis than those on the positive side of that balance sheet that incrementally gain against that same criteria. Now that’s a practical Loser’s game!!
So after these many decades, even the investing institutions, the preferred customers in terms of profit potential, are slowly learning the lesson that many private investors learned much earlier. The California pension fund, CALPERS, has finally reduced the number and the resource commitments to active fund managers. The shortfalls of active fund management has ultimately prompted even these moribund sleeping institutional giants into some action.
Good for them, good for their clients, not so good for the professional money managers. Their services do warrant some payoff, but their investment decisions have been a disaster. They have earned a pay-cut, and that’s now happening. We do learn, although far too slowly.
Best Wishes.

@johnN
What say you??? Do you have a date in mind? Do you suspect that real estate will crash again leading to other problems; or perhaps other problems will lead to an eventual weakening in real estate.
Below is a 2014 short write about baby boomer trends. This group likely holds a lot of real estate at this time. What will happen to this real estate when the boomers leave the planet?
Still location, location, location??? I suspect location is still very important. 'Course, this continues to have a direct link to "work" and "wages", eh? Now, your part of the world has some areas literally "under water". What is this doing for real estate prices today?
Real estate prices in general may remain static and not "crash" again. A crash presumes a fall from some over elevated level, yes??? How long before the 35% or so, of 18-35 year olds move out of their parents homes to pressure real estate prices?
Lots of questions.
What do the doom and gloom web sites predict?
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2014/07/22/12-baby-boomer-retirement-trends

Good news? Has any one noticed a steady upward trend in the NAV of this controversial fund? I've invested a good chunk of my retirement savings in this fund. Despite the setbacks and negative ROI, I held on to the investment. It now appears that the patience of investors may be rewarded. The YTD return is 2.30%. If the trend holds, I may breakeven before the yearend.

Good Day to You,
When I was seventeen, it was a very good year.....or so the lyric goes.
Well, 17 was a long time ago for this one. Now to begin to leave one of my active lovers.
If one is of the mind, passion and spirit for investing; the rewards, satisfaction and a form of love may leave a smile upon the face. While 50 ways (reasons) are not needed to leave an investing lover, one will likely determine a few key personal points.
Needless to say, the group here are not one's normal invest monies in a 401k, 403b, 457 or some form of IRA just to build a retirement account. We here tend to "fiddle" with whatever is available to our accounts.
Understanding/knowing the difference between being a passive or active investor is of value; as long as one also understands that he/she is likely active in managing choices which fall into a passive investment vehicle.
The exceptions that come to mind are when one uses an advisor, be it human or robo. But, one has still made an active choice about this, too.
So........the plan for this house for a total portfolio:
---75% VWINX , 65% IG bonds, 35% U.S. stocks, active managed
---15% FSPHX , healthcare, active managed; also included, DPLO (Diplomat Pharma stock)
---10% FRIFX , a different real estate active managed fund with a history of 50/50 stocks/bonds
We have a percentage of all of these now, but will sell other holdings to accommodate the above numbers.
For those interested, the below links present more information (click on the other tabs at the top, aside from these composition links:
--- VWINX , composition
This fund has superior returns for many years. Yes, it is subject to the markets not unlike any other fund.
--- FSPHX , composition
We still remain tilted towards the health sector and the many sectors within health related. Although this sector has been getting the whack during the past 6 or so months; our holdings average total return for the past several years remain most decent.
--- FRIFX , composition
You won't find an easy method for ranking in a category list for real estate, as this fund doesn't fit the normal holdings positions for this category, being about 50% bonds. As normal, we look for total return over a time frame; versus which fund is having the most fun, say, within a 1 or 2 year period.
--- DPLO , A specialty pharmacy. This company IPO'd in October of 2014. We purchased near the IPO price, having been very familiar with the quality of the organization during its 25 years of being private. We continue to hold this stock.
https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/goto/evaluate/snapshot.jhtml?symbols=DPLO&type=o-NavBar
As we investors are always subject (or should be subject to change) to change, the following holdings will be liquidated; market conditions allowing (no black swans, etc. allowed), from some accounts outside of Fidelity.
---BRUIX , DPRRX , BAGIX , DGCIX , OPBYX , VIIIX , GPROX , PRHSX , HEDJ , FHLC , ITOT
NOTE: all monies are tax sheltered accounts without current tax implications
We'll arrive at a conservative/moderate balanced account holding. As with all individual investors, such mixes are subject to "the eyes of the beholder" function as to how the balance suits their needs and views. The investment mix is mostly biased towards U.S. markets and companies, although at this time; about 20% of the holdings relate to other than U.S. One would also expect these holdings to generate greater than 20% of earnings/yields from sources outside of the U.S. going forward and providing some international exposure by this method.
Lastly, a large core holding in VWINX may be reasonably argued to possibly cause harm to an overall portfolio going forward due to its large percentage holdings in IG bonds. The main argument being that IG bonds have had one heck of a run for much too long. One may suppose that the "odds" factor such an argument. I will note again the phrase "that this time is different" since the market melt of 2008. Of course it is, eh? We live in a most dynamic investing world. At the very least, central banks and related polices operate upon the egos of the members. Who in these groups would want to look bad in the eyes of financial history? I suspect the central banks will continue to surprise many making decisions based upon every available form of data mining to obtain desired outcomes. Our house is still "betting" upon the investment grade bonds. This is no less as scary as the equity markets discovering flaws in the system, not yet known. With VWINX as the example, an investor will reap 35% of the up or down of the given equity holdings and 65% of the up or down of the investment grade bond holdings for a "total" result.
Remain or become fully flexible and adaptable, not just to your perception of the investing marketplace; but more importantly, to and for yourself and those important in your life.
This "personal overview" is likely incomplete; but will suffice for the time being.
Comments welcomed.
Regards,
Catch