FYI: The U.S. Treasury yield curve flattening could become a concern for economic growth when two-year and three-year Treasury note yields are about the same, and the price per barrel of WTI crude oil falls into the $30-dollar range, said Jeffrey Gundlach, chief executive at DoubleLine Capital, on Wednesday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-doubleline-idUSKBN19C2I8

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/946110/000110465917040561/a17-15532_1497.htm
497 1 a17-15532_1497.htm DEFINITIVE MATERIALS
Supplement to the Statutory Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
CREDIT SUISSE EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUND
The following information supersedes certain information in the fund's Statutory Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.
On June 7, 2017, the Board of Trustees (the "Board") of Credit Suisse Opportunity Funds (the "Trust") approved a Plan of Liquidation, Dissolution and Termination (the "Plan") for Credit Suisse Emerging Markets Equity Fund (the "Fund"), a series of the Trust, whereby the assets of the Fund would be liquidated and the Fund subsequently dissolved.
IN LIGHT OF THE BOARD'S DECISION, SHARES OF THE FUND ARE NO LONGER BEING OFFERED EFFECTIVE JUNE 8, 2017.
The liquidation of the Fund, originally scheduled for June 23, 2017, has been delayed due to a delay in the repatriation of cash associated with one of the Fund's emerging markets positions. The Fund expects such cash repatriation to be delayed by up to several weeks and the Fund's liquidation will be delayed until the cash is received. In anticipation of the previously scheduled liquidation date of June 23, 2017, the Fund's portfolio has been converted to cash and shareholders can continue to redeem their shares at net asset value on any business day at any time prior to the Fund's expected future liquidation date. Any shareholder remaining in the Fund as of the new liquidation date will be entitled to receive a distribution in an amount equal to the net asset value of his/her shares as of such date. Each shareholder may also receive unpaid income dividends and capital gain distributions. The liquidation of the Fund is expected to have tax consequences for a shareholder. Shareholders of the Fund should consider consulting with their tax advisers to determine any tax consequences and may wish to redeem their Fund shares prior to such liquidation date. A previous notice describing the Plan and the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund was mailed to shareholders.
Dated: June 21, 2017
16-0617
for
CS-PRO
EME-SUMPRO
2017-002

I kinda DON'T like AJC BECAUSE she is an equity perma-bull. I mean, personally, I am sure she is a lovely person, and very articulate. But what is the value of a broken clock in helping you ascertain the time of day? What is the value of investment advice if the person is always 'cautiously optimistic'?
As for the risk in bonds. Sure, bonds are expensive. They are in part expensive by intent (i.e. monetary policy). But I would posit the CBs of the world are intent to prevent a nasty, sudden increase in rates, if they can. But what if they can't, you ask? Well, bondholders will suffer. But in any hypothetical disorderly bond swoon, I would be shocked if equityholders didn't suffer more than bondholders. After all, bonds both compete with equities for investors' dollars and interest rates (bonds) represent a cost of capital for corporations. Raise the cost of debt capital and residual returns of companies (i.e. earnings) go down.
So while AJC believes bonds are riskier than investors think, --and maybe she is right as I cannot psychoanalyze the collective investor mind --- bonds are still much less risky than equities.

I like Abby Cohen a lot. A regular on Rukeyser's old show. But if you're not aware, Abby is a perma-bull. Can't ever recall her being negative on equities. FWIW

With a 2-year time horizon I would go with Pimco Income and if you have $25,000 to invest, I would open a Brokerage Account at Vanguard to purchase institutional shares (PIMIX). There is a 34 basis point difference in the expense ratio between PONDX and PIMIX.

I would use Vanguard, but I invest for the long term. Over two years, after taxes, this would save someone about eighty bucks. Not chickenfeed, but not a king's ransom either. Depends on how much you value your time and effort. (I'll walk an extra 1/2 mile to save 25 cents on a bottle of soda - but I also benefit from the exercise - the 25c is just an added bonus.)
Increased yield: $25K x 0.34% x 2 years x 75% = $127.50 (25% tax bracket)
Increased cost: $35 to buy, $20 to sell = $55 x 85% = $46.75 (15% tax savings on reduced cap gains)
Net after tax gain by using Vanguard: $80.75

Districtwanderer:
A couple things. I think your impulse to “cap” your contributions, and squirrel away surplus savings elsewhere is WISE. Employer plans are “captive” with the plan administrator and often limit your options.
You mentioned investing in rentals. I’ve not the ‘skill-set’ or interest to invest in real-estate directly. However, for those who do – meaning you invest sweat-equity along with your cash – I believe it can be very lucrative. A caveat: investing in real estate directly is like opening your business (real estate rentals IS a business!) So really acquaint yourselves with common problems – so you can avoid them. You may wish to consider joining a real-estate mentoring group to get a taste of what the possible pitfalls (and opportunities) are out there. A local group in my area is “lifestyles unlimited”, though I am certain there are many other such groups.
Even if you choose to NOT go the rental-investment route, I think it make sense to have tax-diversification for one’s savings if possible. That means have some in tax-deferred vehicles (401k, IRA), some in tax-free (Roth) and some in taxable. Taxable accounts, while taxable, have advantages:
- The Feds don’t penalize you for removing monies from taxable accounts. So, unlike IRAs and qualified plans, you are free to do with your money what you will, without “Uncle” putting roadblocks in your way. And for anyone with a moderate-or-higher amount of assets, it’s prudent to ‘self-custody’ some portion of one’s assets (IMO).
- Uncle Sam is agreeable to subsidizing investment losses which you realize (when the Bear returns) in taxable accounts. Not so in deferred accounts.
- I believe too, that there may be estate-planning considerations, especially involving trusts, which may make it attractive to have some of your assets outside a qualified plan. Estate-planning issues seem trivial at age 30; but as one gets older, they will grow in importance (assuming one has amassed a large estate).
- As you approach/enter retirement, (again, a long ways away for you) having monies in a taxable account (meaning you have already paid the taxes for all realized gains) provides one with ‘optionality’ of timing, as to when/where you will draw down your deferred accounts (which will be FULLY TAXABLE at the then-prevailing tax rate).
WOW! – Am running way long. But, bottom line, I think it’s a good idea to balance qualified-plan contributions with savings in taxable accounts. JMO. Good luck.

"we started at 25, and have obviously benefited from perhaps the greatest bull market we will see in our lifetimes."
Might well be. It's already the second longest (in case you measure greatness by age), and as of March is closing in on the second highest gain. Likely even greater in real terms since we've had low inflation for many years (though I haven't computed real gains).
Graphic: Post WWII bull markets, duration and gain
http://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7HDT2/2/
You'll find other sources that state the bull markets ran longer (see graphic below), but they tend to ignore "minor" intervening blips like the 19.90% S&P 500 drop from July to October 1990, or the Aug 1956 to Nov 1957 22% drop.

Using Monte Carlo, at least the tools that you've been referred to, would seem to ignore this not insignificant fact that we're in nearly uncharted territory. In addition to disregarding the run up in equities, they would also seem to discount the the 35 year bull market in bonds. A multi-decade bond run is not a singular event, but unique when one considers how fast/far bond prices have risen, or alternatively how much rates have fallen:
The tools don't address your question because they don't seem to allow for the setting of preconditions; verily they are built on the premise that performance in one time period is independent of what came before.
Even if they did incorporate preconditions, there doesn't seem to be sufficient historical data to provide meaningful input for current conditions. The preceding eight years have been part of the same bull market. That's only happened twice before: 1998 when the 1990-2000 bull also hit the eight year mark, and 1999 when it hit its 9th birthday.
Monte Carlo tools strike me as better suited to playing with hypothetical long range outcomes than ascertaining real world (context sensitive) possibilities.
As to the question at hand, your guess is as good as mine. If you're looking long term, the rule of thumb is that there's no better time than now to invest, though in bonds I'd be more conservative. Best case for principal protection is that rates don't rise (currently 2.16% 10 year), and the risk isn't worth the 80 basis points over cash. Worst case, rates rise and you lose principal.
Personally, I've never been fond of real estate as an investment. Historic returns have been lower than for US equities, though real estate could help meet your objective of diversification.

My reaction was similar, though not as harsh.
This is just a repackaging of Fidelity's managed payout funds, though you can't tell the players without a scorecard. Fidelity's original managed payout funds were designed as "pseudo annuities" that would exhaust their assets on their target dates. In contrast, some other managed payout funds, like VPGDX, are designed to provide a constant income stream indefinitely.
Some of the Fidelity managed payout funds were rebranded and closed, e.g. Fidelity Managed Retirement 2020, FIRVX, was originally Fidelity Income Replacement 2038. I believe the difference in dates is because the former is about the time you turn 70.5 (but I'm not quite sure); the latter the date the fund is exhausted.
Other Fidelity managed payout funds were rebranded as Simplicity RMD funds, e.g. Fidelity Simplicity RMD 2020, FIRWX, Fund was originally Fidelity Income Replacement 2040. These are the "new" funds that are now open.
"They have an optional feature that automatically calculates and distributes an investor's RMD from the account."
Bzzzt. Wong reporting (what else is new?). Here's Fidelity's PR page, saying (like the prospectus) that "The fund's investment objective is intended to support a payment strategy designed to be implemented through a shareholder's voluntary participation in a complementary systematic withdrawal plan" - not a feature of the fund itself. That is, just what BobC described that's available for any other fund.
Though Fidelity offers such services (i.e. RMD calculations and automatic withdrawals), (a) they don't always get the calculations correct, and (b) other IRA custodians may not provide this service at all. Suffice to say, this comes from actual experience (helping a relative).
The lesson: you're the one responsible for RMDs, regardless of the service you expect the custodian to provide. All that these Simplicity RMD funds do is provide glide paths that may or may not suit your RMD needs.

The Fed is expected to raise short term rates and discuss the disposal/unwind of their bond holdings. Well, at least the short terms traders have their viewpoints as expressed in the percentage gains shown below. Tis still early in the day, and I will remain interested in price/yield movement in the coming days and weeks. NOTE: Retail sales have biggest drop in 16 months. The Fed folks have much to consider, eh?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN1951Q8?il=0
IG bonds just below at 11:30am
LQD +0.83%
IEF +0.82%
EDV +2.19%
A view of sectors, with "bold" being interest rate sensitive or defensive in nature; generally, historically speaking.
Sector Change % down / up
Energy -0.75%
Basic Materials +0.02%
Industrials +0.10%
Cyclical Cons. Goods ... -0.06%
Non-Cyclical Cons. Goods +0.76%
Financials -0.25%
Healthcare +0.32%
Technology +0.22%
Telecommunications Serv +0.17%
Utilities +0.45%
Take care,
Catch

FYI: A drop in technology stocks on Friday dragged Wall Street away from the record highs it hit earlier in the session, helped by gains in bank stocks.
Still, all three major indexes are on track to end the week higher, with focus turning to the Federal Reserve's meeting next week, when the central bank is near certain to raise interest rates.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-08/pound-drops-as-u-k-exit-poll-unnerves-investors-markets-wrap
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN1901LX
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-tipped-for-more-gains-as-investors-weigh-up-uk-election-results-2017-06-09/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/nasdaq-reverses-lower-growth-names-hit-hard-financials-hold-up/
CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/us-stocks-uk-election.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS_ASOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Mixed:
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Very generously...OT, and only because we don't have BS category on MFO.
People do not live their investment lives over 100 years.
People also don't notice "pain" unless portfolio goes down 20% because they are "told" not to.
Then people start wondering - deers caught in headlights - while their 20% loss turns into 50% loss. Then they sell. And of course, not a single "expert" at that point will stick his neck out and say "don't sell". THEN, after the market returns back to the point where the correction started we get "investors are so stupid".
First, investors need to define their own "success". Don't let someone do it for you.
Second, a "successful" investor is one that does not lose money, as in permanent loss of capital.
All 20 year olds can read this post or they can read the other. Just remember, you do what YOU think is right, else either I or some expert is going to laugh at you in 30 years either way. And I hope one does not need a "Buddha" to explain this.

This is good news if their recalibration works, and I'll stand corrected during the next correction if it is. However, there is a hole in the narrative. During the 2000-2002 bear market, Oberweis Small Cap Opportunities (OBSOX) dramatically underperformed its small-cap growth peers and the Russell 2000. It did so also in 2008. Why wasn't the process corrected before during the last dramatic 2000-02 underperformance? Admittedly, Oberweis Micro OBMCX did better during the 2000-2002 period, but so did all micro-caps and it actually lagged significantly a micro-index fund --Bridgeway's BRSIX. In some respects, Oberweis reminds me of Bridgeway. Historically, the funds have done well in bull markets and poorly in bears. They seem to be slightly leveraged--not literally but from a beta perspective--amplifying their upside and down by more aggressive bets in sectors like technology. Now the style re-calibration--at both shops actually post 2008--may have changed that, but it seems the nature of the beast somewhat with small-cap growth funds that they amplify risks. From a purely sector perspective recent years have been particularly good for the tech sector and Oberweis tends to focus on those kinds of names. When the sector turns, the performance may not be so good.
Regarding tax efficiency, one secret many investors don't realize is that when a fund has a small asset base that is growing rapidly it is inherently tax efficient. If you have $50 million of capital gains it is far more dramatic in a $100 million fund than a $1 billion fund. New money dilutes the tax impact of all those gains even in a high turnover fund. When money flows in the other direction--out of the fund--the opposite can be the case.

Answer from Trump supporters after DT messes up repeatedly:
"Y...ye....yeah, but we won, y'all. Nah nah nah-nah-nah"- The Deplorables
Trump will claim he is responsible for any market gains, but if it drops? Well certainly that's Obama's fault!

FYI: U.S. stocks edged up on Wednesday on relief that written testimony from former FBI director James Comey did not include any big surprise about an investigation into Russian meddling with the U.S. presidential election.
Regard,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-06/investors-remain-cautious-as-treasuries-gain-markets-wrap?srnd=157391092
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN18Y1GG
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-stocks-becalmed-as-investors-get-ready-for-super-thursday-2017-06-07/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-dodge-oil-dilemma-end-higher-as-china-names-rally/
CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/07/us-stocks-await-comey-uk-election-ecb.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS_ASOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-07/your-evening-briefing-j3n69x7f
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPRR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Positive
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/803020/000114420417031272/v468560_497.htm
497 1 v468560_497.htm 497
The OBERWEIS FUNDS
Oberweis International Opportunities Fund
SUPPLEMENT DATED june 6, 2017
TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED MAY 1, 2017
Effective as of the close of business on June 9, 2017, the Oberweis International Opportunities Fund will be closed for investment, except that existing shareholders as of the close of business on June 9, 2017 who own shares of the International Opportunities Fund through (i) a qualified retirement plan account (e.g., IRAs and other tax-advantaged retirement plans, such as 401(k) Plans and 403(b)(7) Plans) and participants in qualified retirement plans that offer the International Opportunities Fund as an investment option may continue to invest in the International Opportunities Fund, and (ii) an account advised by an investment adviser may continue to invest in the International Opportunities Fund if such investments are being made pursuant to a rebalancing program. Employees of Oberweis Asset Management or its affiliated entities or trustees of The Oberweis Funds, and their families, may continue to invest in the International Opportunities Fund. In addition, all existing shareholders of the International Opportunities Fund will be permitted to reinvest any dividends, capital gains or distributions in additional shares of the International Opportunities Fund and may exchange their shares in the International Opportunities Fund for shares of the Oberweis International Opportunities Institutional Fund provided that the exchange meets the minimum investment requirements for the Oberweis International Opportunities Institutional Fund – generally, $1 million. Further all existing shareholders of the Oberweis International Opportunities Institutional Fund may exchange their shares in that Fund for shares of the International Opportunities Fund, subject to a $1,000 minimum. Shares will be exchanged for each other based upon their relative net asset values.
The Oberweis International Opportunities Fund may resume sales of shares to new investors at some future date.
The Oberweis Emerging Growth Fund, the Oberweis Micro-Cap Fund, the Oberweis Small-Cap Opportunities Fund and the Oberweis China Opportunities Fund remain open to both new investors and existing shareholders.
June 6, 2017
THE OBERWEIS FUNDS
3333 Warrenville Road, Suite 500
Lisle, Illinois 60532
1-800-245-7311
Incidentally, here is the supplement to the Prospectus:
http://oberweisfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Oberweis_Funds_Prospectus.pdf

On the 'Tax' page for a fund M* shows the potential capital gains exposure. In the case of carrying a loss forward I guess it would be negative and in most cases now it's positive.

You pay tax on all dividends for the year they're distributed. Some of those dividends are ordinary income, some are long term gains. Whatever they are, you pay taxes when you receive them - as you wrote, regardless of whether you take them in cash or reinvest them in the fund.
Conversely, you don't pay taxes on the appreciation of your shares until you sell them, just like regular stocks.

Thanks msf!
- Looks like lower tax cost ratio is better.
- Also looks like PIEQX isn't a bad choice given the constraints I mentioned.
- Re: Earned dividends - I assume you have to pay taxes yearly whether you sell shares or not?
- Re: Long-term cap gains - I assume (possibly incorrectly) you only pay those after selling shares?
This tax stuff is beginning to look complicated. :)

Morningstar's pages have a tab called "tax", which shows you the "tax cost ratio". For example, here's FCNTX 's tax page:
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=FCNTX
This calculation is but one way of representing tax efficiency. This one tells you what percentage of your investment went to pay taxes. Here's M*'s brief description:
http://www.morningstar.com/InvGlossary/tax_cost_ratio.aspx
Note that most sites (and all prospectuses) use the highest tax rates in computing tax efficiency. If you're in a lower bracket, and especially if you're in a 15% or lower bracket (where qualified divs and long term cap gains get taxed at 0%), you'll want to take the figures with a grain of salt.
There's also an oddity in how mutual funds handle cap gains. If they have net gains, they distribute them to you, just as if you'd owned the portfolio and bought and sold it yourself. But if they have net losses, they are not allowed to distribute them to you. The losses accrue (accumulate), and next year, or the year after, or ... whenever they have a net gain, they can use those accrued losses to reduce the gains distributed.
This has the effect of distorting tax cost figures. After the market swoons (e.g. 2008), pretty much everyone has large losses accrued. So for the next few years, all funds look tax efficient as they apply those losses against realized gains.
IMHO turnover should be low enough that the fund isn't generating short term gains (taxed as ordinary income). But so long as the cap gains are long term, it doesn't matter too much. Sooner or later, even with very low turnover, the fund is going to sell appreciated shares. If it's allowed the stock to appreciate a lot, then it will recognize large gains then. Averaged over time, it comes out the same as taking a little at a time.
Very low turnover (vs. low turnover) helps on the cost side, since trading costs are a big hidden cost in fund ownership. As you noted, you want low costs, whether explicit (in the ER) or implicit, in the trading commissions paid by the fund.
I pay attention to tax efficiency but I don't obsess over it.

Might have a modest sum to invest from sale of some property later this summer. Would like to "meld" it into existing portfolio which is currently mostly tax-deferred funds. Would prefer to invest in something at T. Rowe for simplicity. If it's a fund I already own there inside the tax shelter, that's even better.
I've looked at their muni funds and not impressed by any in the current low interest rate environment - though they might suffice for part of the money. I'm thinking maybe PIEQX (international equity index) which I already own in the tax-sheltered account might be a good choice for non-sheltered money?
Is there a website somewhere where you can input a fund and get a reading of its relative tax efficiency? I'm a neophyte at non-sheltered investing. Am assuming taxable income is to be discouraged in favor of long term capital gains. Further, you want low fees and low turnover. Thanks for any thoughts.

I have owned PVFIX for many years. My initial investment is approaching "doubling" in the fund. When I first purchased the fund, Mr. Dreysher used to write accompanying articles to PVFIX shareholders, which I haven't seen for some time. Fund is conservative and will not "shoot the lights out" in a bull market, but I don't have to worry about my investment. I don't think the fund has passed $68mm for some time.
I remember a couple of years ago his number one holding was "Capital Southwest (CSWC)" which I still own today including its spinoff, CSW Inc.