While I also have the impression that most (i.e. more than 50%) of fund families reopen funds through all channels, limited reopenings are not unusual. For example, Sequoia Fund SEQUX, T. Rowe Price Health Sciences PRHSX, Vanguard Capital Opportunity VHCOX.
Often funds do the reverse - go from being completely open to limiting new accounts to direct investments. American Century Midcap Value ACMVX, Wellington VWELX (since then completely closed), etc.

Click here
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-30/the-amount-of-etf-shares-being-traded-has-eclipsed-u-s-gdp
Then click here:
sifma.org/factbook/
The amount of speculation--paper trading hands--versus the amount of actual capital raised to ostensibly grow business (or to buy back stock and not grow business) is staggering. Just the ETF volume alone is about nine times the total amount of capital raised and larger than the U.S. GDP, and that doesn't include volume on individual stocks and bonds. If one believes in buy and hold investing and that market timing is impossible as I believe folks like MJG have claimed this is not a productive use of resources. It is one trader selling an already existing share of Microsoft stock to another who then turns around and sells it to another and another ad infinitum without providing Microsoft any additional capital to grow its business. Speculation has become Wall Street's primary business, while raising new capital is secondary.

MJG writes about 1792, as if Wall Street served the same function today as it did then. Some part of it does, and if Wall Street kept to that knitting, you wouldn't be seeing some of the posts here. But let's not confuse that with the last four decades of financial "innovation".
We can start with Drexel Burnham Lambert.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/junk-bond1.htm
Even the insurance industry prohibits insuring a life in which you're not related. This is called the insurable interest doctrine. But not Wall Street.
"When the British Parliament passed the Life Assurance Act in 1774, it acknowledged that the opportunity to insure a stranger would create a 'mischievous kind of gaming' that allowed one person to profit from the death of another." Just for those who like financial history going back to the 1700s.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/04/can_i_buy_life_insurance_on_a_stranger.html
But Wall Street in its infinite wisdom decided that trading credit default swaps that guaranteed bond payments was just fine, even if you have no interest in the income stream. CDSs as they became to be traded in the past couple of decades have no apparent use, at least in MJG's 1792 sense.
http://www.robinskaplan.com/resources/articles/credit-default-swaps-from-protection-to-speculation
See also, FT (2010): Call for ban on CDS speculation.
Rolling Stone pretty well wraped it up in one of its intro paragraphs on Bain Capital in 2012:
"Romney wants us to believe that critics of private equity are against capitalism. They’re not. They’re against a predatory system created and perpetuated by Wall Street solely to pump its own profits."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-private-equity-firms-like-bain-really-are-the-worst-of-capitalism-20120523

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494928/000139834417004560/fp0025080_497.htm
497 1 fp0025080_497.htm
RiverPark Funds Trust
RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund
Institutional Class (RPHIX)
Retail Class (RPHYX)
Supplement dated April 5, 2017 to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (the “Disclosure Documents”) dated January 27, 2017.
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Disclosure Documents and should be read in conjunction with the Disclosure Documents.
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of the close of business on April 5, 2017 (the “Re-Opening Date”), the RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund (the “Fund”) will be publicly available for sale on a limited basis as set forth below.
The following groups will be permitted to purchase Fund shares after the Re-Opening Date:
1. Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Re-Opening Date (although if a shareholder closes all accounts in the Fund, additional investment in the Fund from that shareholder may not be accepted) may continue to purchase additional shares in their existing Fund accounts either directly from the Fund or through a financial intermediary and may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions from shares owned in the Fund,
2. New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase directly from the Fund (i.e. not through a financial intermediary), and
3.Members of the Fund’s Board of Trustees, persons affiliated with RiverPark Advisors, LLC or Cohanzick Management, LLC and their immediate families will be able to purchase shares of the Fund and establish new accounts.
The Fund may from time to time, in its sole discretion, limit the types of investors permitted to open new accounts, limit new purchases or otherwise modify the above policy at any time on a case-by-case basis.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

I believe Target Date Funds could be used in a totally different manner than they are typically advertised which usually means these funds "target a retirement date".
I propose using these funds to provide a glide path of risk that "targets income needs in retirement" over future 5 year time periods.
Let's say I am 57 years of age in 2017 and I see a need for my investments to provide me an income of $X/month (adjusted for inflation) starting in three years (age 60).
So, a 2020 Target Date Fund would be funded with 5 years of spending (for age 60-64). So in 2020, I would begin disbursements from this 2020 fund and spend this fund down over the next 5 years (2020-2024). A Target Date Fund remains invested very conservatively after it reaches its target date which is perfect for spend down.
At age 57, I also would fund a 2025 Target Date Fund to begin disbursement in 2025 (from age 65-69).
I also would fund a 2030 Target Date Fund to disburse in 2030 (from age 70-74)
and so on...
Beyond the first 15 years I would then use 10 year increments such as,
2040 Fund for years 75-84
2050 Fund for years 85 - older
5 Funds all done.
For emergencies I might conservatively fund an additional 3-5 years of spending and replenish as needed.
All other resources could be aggressively invested without the worry of spending these resources at the wrong time (a bear market).
The beauty of a Target Date Funds is that they glide away from risk as they approach the spend down date (target date) and remains low risk during the 5 year spend down period.
Longer dated funds have time to deal with the risk/reward of the market serving as the inflation hedge.

There's the tax advantage of a 529 fund -- the gains are not taxed (as long as the withdrawals are used for college education).
I opened an account for each grandchild -- two of them with T Rowe Price (Alaska state plan) and three with Nebraska state plan. I don't use their target date funds -- there are some regular mutual fund choices (that's what I looked for when starting). It's mostly on automatic pilot -- $100 per kid per month out of my checking account. With an extra contribution at birthday and Christmas. It's hard to find time to examine the results closely, but the total has grown nicely and the individual funds' numbers stack up pretty well with S&P 500. The two older boys are in the sixth grade now, so in a few years I'll see how complicated it is to get the money out.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312517110128/d350531d497.htm
497 1 d350531d497.htm AQR FUNDS PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT
AQR FUNDS
Supplement dated April 4, 2017 (“Supplement”)
to the Class I Shares and Class N Shares Prospectus dated May 1, 2016, as amended (“Prospectus”), of the AQR Diversified Arbitrage Fund, AQR Long-Short Equity Fund, AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund, AQR Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund, AQR Style Premia Alternative Fund and AQR Style Premia Alternative LV Fund (the “Funds”)
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus. Please review this important information carefully. You may obtain copies of the Funds’ Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information free of charge, upon request, by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248.
Effective at the close of business on June 30, 2017, the AQR Long-Short Equity Fund and AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund will be closed to new investors, subject to certain exceptions as set out below under the heading “Closed Fund Policies.”
Additionally, effective April 5, 2017, the section entitled “Closed Fund Policies” beginning on page 165 of the Prospectus is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
Closed Fund Policies
Effective at the close of business of the below dates (each, a “Closing Date”), the following Funds (each, as of its Closing Date, a “Closed Fund”) were or will be closed to new investors, subject to certain exceptions.
Closed Fund Closing Date
AQR Diversified Arbitrage Fund June 29, 2012
AQR Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund September 30, 2013
AQR Style Premia Alternative Fund March 31, 2016
AQR Style Premia Alternative LV Fund March 31, 2016
AQR Long-Short Equity Fund June 30, 2017
AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund June 30, 2017
Existing shareholders of a Closed Fund as of the applicable Closing Date are permitted to make additional investments in that Closed Fund and reinvest dividends and capital gains after the Closing Date in any account that held shares of the Closed Fund as of the Closing Date.
Notwithstanding the closing of a Closed Fund, you may open a new account in the Closed Fund (including through an exchange from another series of the Trust (each, a “Series”)) and thereafter reinvest dividends and capital gains in the Closed Fund if you meet the Closed Fund’s eligibility requirements and are:
● A current shareholder of the applicable Closed Fund as of the Closing Date—either (a) in your own name or jointly with another or as trustee for another, or (b) as beneficial owner of shares held in another name—opening a (i) new individual account or IRA account in your own name, (ii) trust account, (iii) joint account with another party or (iv) account on behalf of an immediate family member;
1
● A qualified defined contribution retirement plan that offers the applicable Closed Fund as an investment option of the plan (or another plan sponsored by the same employer), as of the Closing Date purchasing shares on behalf of new and existing participants;
● A financial advisor, wrap-fee program or model portfolio who as of the Closing Date has included the applicable Closed Fund as part of a discretionary fee-based program or model portfolio purchasing shares on behalf of a new or existing client;
● An investor opening a new account at a financial institution and/or financial intermediary firm or a client of an investment consultant that (i) has clients currently invested in the applicable Closed Fund or clients for whom the Adviser provides advisory services implementing a similar principal investment strategy and (ii) the new account to be opened has been pre-approved by the Adviser to purchase shares of the applicable Closed Fund. Investors should contact the firm through which they invest to determine whether new accounts are permitted;
● Clients of a financial institution, financial intermediary or consultant that submitted a letter of intent to invest in the Closed Fund that was accepted by the Adviser on or prior to the Closing Date;
● A shareholder of a Fund (including a Closed Fund) or another account or fund managed by the Adviser transferring, either by exchange or redemption and subsequent purchase, into a Closed Fund with a similar principal investment strategy where the Adviser concludes, in its judgment, that the transfer will not adversely affect the applicable Closed Fund;
● A participant in a tax-exempt retirement plan of the Adviser and its affiliates and rollover accounts from those plans, as well as employees of the Adviser and its affiliates, trustees and officers of the Trust and members of their immediate families; or
● A current shareholder of the AQR Diversified Arbitrage Fund transferring, either by exchange or redemption and subsequent purchase, into AQR Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund where the Adviser concludes, in its judgment, that the transfer will not adversely affect AQR Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund.
● A current shareholder of the AQR Long-Short Equity Fund transferring, either by exchange or redemption and subsequent purchase, into the AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund where the Adviser concludes, in its judgment, that the transfer will not adversely affect the AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund.
● A current shareholder of the AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund transferring, either by exchange or redemption and subsequent purchase, into the AQR Long-Short Equity Fund where the Adviser concludes, in its judgment, that the transfer will not adversely affect the AQR Long-Short Equity Fund.
The ability to permit, limit or decline investments in accordance with the eligibility requirements set out above relating to accounts held by financial institutions and/or financial intermediaries may vary depending upon systems capabilities, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those institutions and/or intermediaries.
Investors may be required to demonstrate eligibility to purchase shares of a Closed Fund before an investment is accepted.
Each Closed Fund reserves the right to (i) allow investments in Closed Funds that do not fit within the eligibility requirements above pursuant to guidelines approved by the Funds’ Board of Trustees, (ii) reject any investment, including those pursuant to eligibility requirements detailed above, and (iii) close and re-open the Closed Fund to new or existing shareholders at any time.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE...
2

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1396092/000120928617000225/e2088.htm
497 1 e2088.htm
B. Riley Diversified Equity Fund (the “Fund”)
(Investor Class Shares – BRDRX)
(Institutional Class Shares – BRDZX)
(Class A Shares – BRDAX)
8730 Stony Point Parkway, Suite 205
Richmond, Virginia 23235
Supplement dated April 4, 2017
To the Fund’s Prospectus dated May 1, 2016
(as supplemented from time to time)
* * * * * * * *
Elimination of Investment Minimums for the Fund
Effective immediately, all references to investment minimums and minimum subsequent investments in the Fund are hereby removed. B. Riley Asset Management, a division of B. Riley Capital Management, LLC, the investment adviser to the Fund, determined to no longer require investment minimums or minimum subsequent investments for the Fund.
Previously, the minimum initial purchase or exchange into the Fund was $5,000 for Investor Class Shares, $10,000 for Institutional Class Shares, and $3,000 for Class A Shares. Subsequent investment amounts were previously $2,500, $2,500 and $100, respectively, for Investor Class Shares, Institutional Class Shares, and Class A Shares.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Agree with Lewis ... the line of reasoning in the article (from Ted's copy & paste) appears to confuse having a marketplace/exchange for finance and capital formation in general vs. the bizarre and corrupted form of a marketplace that exists today. Besides that, salaries and wages are much more crucial for living a decent life than Wall St. is - without reasonable levels of the former, there's nothing to invest in the latter.

I could do without iPhones, Netflix, Chevy pickups and wide screen TVs. Grocery stores yeah I need those, but local groceries could easily exist without Wall Street. Capitalism could still exist without Wall Street. And even local banks and credit unions could lend without Wall Street. Precious little capital formation is done on the stock market today. New issuance of shares via IPOs and secondary offerings is only a minuscule fraction of the annual volume on today's stock exchanges. Wall Street is largely an entity that exists as a self-contained unit for itself today in which speculation rules. It is one highly paid trader and institutional manager trading to another or shaving a few points off the spread off some retail investing rube. It is paper trading hands without precious capital formation. And even when companies do issue new securities, of late that issuance hasn't been to grow their businesses, invest in R&D and create new wonderful products and jobs. A lot of times it's been to issue debt to buy back stock and juice earnings. Yes, Wall Street does still have a valid purpose, but that purpose has been dwarfed by a lot of unnecessary speculation and financial engineering.

I bought BPTRX for my daughter years ago as I liked his other funds ( way before the asset bloat there) and thought she had a 50 + year horizon. The crazy leverage he uses helped drive the fund to one of my best investments but I wouldn't recommend it for anyone who needs the money before sometime in the 2040s.
As an added benefit, Ron Baron has an annual meeting with a suprize entertainer that some years caught her attention when the stock performance did not. (Paul McCarthy one year) a nice bennie although who knows what that cost us shareholders?
Now we should lighten up but who wants to pay capital gains?
Couple of thoughts
1) Not a big an issue now but back then (1990s) hard to find decent funds that would take small amounts of money
2) given the vagaries of managers and performance would pick a fund with something resembling a team approach in a big company so you dont get stuck with an under preforming fund with a a large capital gain years hence.
But realistically best to use SPY or VTI

Sometimes, investing is much like the weather. At times the sun can be out with a nice blue sky along with the temperature in the mid 80's and calm winds ... and, here comes a solar votrex that disrupts communications, travel and other things.
With this, now in retirement I run an all weather conserative asset allocation in my portfolio along with a rebalance plan that adjust my equity allocation based upon certain stock market conditions plus I also harvest some capital gains in the rebalance process thus keeping them from becoming vaporized in major stock market declines.
With this, when the day gets spoiled by a solar vortex (so-to-speak) and the bear comes growling I am already ahead of most; and, it is a big reason I keep an ample cash on hand so that I can become a buyer of stocks in major stock market pullbacks and corrections.
With my portfolio management tools and rebalance processes as the markets recover I continue to sell down equities through a systematic process. Really nothing complex about this just a disciplined and systematic approach that keys off of stock market pullbacks and their recovery where I harvest some capital gains along the way.
Folks ... thus far, this process has worked well form me and my family through the years. It has worked thus far for me, my father, his father and so on and so forth. It's really quite simple ... Make harvest of the crops whether they are capital gains in the markets or crops in the soil.

@bee. Yeah I think I heard someone say this on NPR couple of weeks back. Stock Prices have been influenced more because of cheap money funneled into buybacks rather than producing any economic benefit.
But as you know, this time is different. Sure. We will have different percentage downturn in the stock market. There are times I feel it might be catastrophic if it does not happen until 3rd year of Presidency. 3rd years are when they pull out all stops to make sure things stay "good" while they are campaigning. Better take a 20% correction before 2018. If we wait till 2020, who knows what will happen.
Also, didn't someone post article on MFO about subprime autoloan problem being the same size as the home subprime problem?

FYI: Friday is the last day of the first quarter, and one of the prominent themes of the first three months of 2017 has been the leadership displayed by emerging markets equities. With one trading day left in the quarter, the widely followed MSCI Emerging Markets Index is higher by almost 14 percent. Said another way, the combined gains of the S&P 500 and the MSCI EAFE Index do not equal that of the emerging markets benchmark.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/investors-pour-into-em-etfs-to-close-q1-2017-03-31-7464558/print

@Crash
You and I, or anyone here could build a fund named "Eight Ball Total Return Fund" (BALLX).
---25%, U.S. equity
---25%, International, ex-US, equity
---25% investment grade bonds
---25% high yield bonds
Our motto: We'll do our best to provide the highest possible "Total Return" while attempting the preservation of capital

FYI: With interest rates rising in the U.S., income investors might want to look abroad, where a rally in higher-yielding emerging-market bonds is delivering outsized gains, said Jack McIntyre, a portfolio manager at Brandywine Global Investment Management.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-the-best-bonds-travel-to-emerging-markets-says-brandywine-fund-manager-2017-03-29/print
M* Snapshot GOBAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/gobax/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot GOBAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/gobax
GOBAX Is Unranked In The (WB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-bond/legg-mason-bw-global-opps-bd/gobax

I almost posted this in the thread that noted that even active funds that are outperforming are losing assets to index funds but I decided it might generate more discussion as a separate thread .scussion as a separate thread
Speaking for myself I am truly sorry that since 2013 I did not have most of the assets in my taxable accounts in index funds(until that year distributions were not that large). Outperformance by up to 3% does not compensate for 10% or more capital gain distributions which throw me into a higher bracket and make me exposed to other penalties Even worse any underperformance can result in large withdrawals by others resulting in even larger distributions. Selling the funds is no solution as that results in a bigger tax bill.Obviously if I had to do it all over again I would do it differently . Any ideas would be appreciated as my current strategy of avoiding taxes is to die and that strategy has flaws

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Consumer staples aren’t the haven they used to be. the sector’s vulnerability became all too apparent in February, when news leaked that Kraft Heinz was making a play for Unilever. Staples stocks quickly traded down, as the promise of catching Warren Buffett’s eye dissipated. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (ticker: BRKA) and Brazilian conglomerate 3G Capital control Kraft Heinz (KHC).
Then Unilever (UL) rejected what would have been the largest food and beverage deal in history, and consumer staples stocks sprang back to life. The sector is up 1.4% since its February swoon, versus a 0.3% gain for the S&P 500.
https://www.google.com/#q=Consumer+Staples+Could+Be+in+for+a+Fall+Barron's&*
Regards,
Ted

1. Don't know if it's an SEC requirement, but Have yet to read a recent mutual fund prospectus that does't show returns year-by-year dating back a full decade. When considering a new fund, that's one of the first things I look at. The '07-'08 global market debacle did us one service. It painted vividly how funds than in existence held up during the downturn. As Lewis rightly explains, each bear market is different. We need to be careful in making projections based on past performance. But I ike to look at the '07-'09 history.
2. For a newer fund like DSENX that record doesn't exist. I'm not sure it could be "mirrored" by looking at various asset classes at the time, since its performance appears highly dependent on manager execution.
3. I have purchased new funds for which '07-09 records weren't in existence. IMHO this requires a higher degree of confidence in management (based on track record) and an even better understanding of the fund's investment approach than might otherwise be needed. One such fund is RPGAX which I've owned almost since inception in 2013.
On the other hand, concerned about equity valuations and a narrowing spread between high quality and junk bonds, I recently sold OPPEX (Oppenheimer Capital Income). This is a normally low volatility fund which attempts to hedge market risk (equity and bond) in various ways. It's provided a smooth ride over the year I've owned it. However, in looking back at '07-'08, this otherwise low volatility income fund managed to shed 40% over 2 years (nearly 38% in '08). I'd started with a small commitment to the fund. As the amount grew (and markets evolved) I decided that the risk-reward profile wasn't suitable for my needs.
FWIW

OK, so what you're saying is the portfolio is both leveraged, adding to volatility, and has counterparty risk via the swaps. Look at the holdings here: https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1480207/000119312517055343/d321548dnq.htm
So the counterparties responsible for the swaps tied to the CAPE index are Barclays Capital, BNP Paribas, and Bank of America. Anything goes wrong with them and there's a problem. Additionally the swaps cost between 0.43% to 0.47% of the swap's value to put on, adding to fees. So there is added risk and cost and I still don't think this would be that hard to replicate with a small options position to add a little bit of leverage. Now you could say the leverage isn't bad in the fund as it is bonds on top of stocks and those two asset classes aren't highly correlated normally. The only problem is there are circumstances when those asset classes are correlated such as in a rising interest rate or highly inflationary environment causing both bonds and stocks to fall. I would say that environment or a credit crisis where Barclays, BNP or Bank of America get into trouble could expose the added risks here.