FYI: he RMB Mendon Financial Services Fund (the “Fund”) will “soft close” on March 15, 2017. This “soft close” is designed to ensure that the Fund continues to be managed in the best interests of its existing shareholders. Effective as of the close of trading on March 14, 2017, the availability of the Fund to new investors is limited. New investors in the Fund must meet certain requirements as set forth in the Fund’s prospectus to make an investment. Those who are shareholders of the Fund as of March 14, 2017, and who continue to be shareholders thereafter, may make additional investments in the Fund and also reinvest dividends and capital gain distributions in the Fund unless RMB Capital considers such additional purchases not to be in the best interests of the Fund and its other shareholders. Tickers impacted by the soft close are RMBKX, RMBLX, and RMBNX.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170302006265/en
M* Snapshot RMBKX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/rmbkx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot RMBKX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/rmbkx
RMBKX Is Unranked In The (FS) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/financial/rmb-mendon-financial-services-fund/rmbkx

FYI: The S&P 500’s 1.37% gain yesterday was the sixth best start to March (1st trading day of the month) in the index’s history. Below is a quick table highlighting all 1%+ gains on the first trading day of March for the S&P 500 since 1928.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/sixth-best-start-to-march-on-record/

Sandra- surely you can't really believe that my changing some chart parameters to allow for larger than normal increases in investment gains is an accurate predictor of anything. Nonetheless, it has worked out that way a fair number of times. Make of that what you will.

new funds that may attract investor capital, but will cost them dearly

Hi @VintageFreak and others,
I also harvest some of my capital gains along the way each year so they want go to waste during a stock market correction. The amount I take each varries based upon a target income amount I shoot to achieve each year from my portfolio. The twenty percent that you shoot for each year is more in the range of 5% to 10% for me. This is one of the ways that helps me maintain a high cash level within my portfolio (capital gain harvest).
Take care and I enjoy reading your post.
Old_Skeet

It's not just an effective strategy for managing volatility, it can significantly beat the market in cases of significant downturns, although it would tend to trail in cases where an investor gets whipsawed. From late 2000 until the beginning of 2013 the S&P went nowhere (excluding dividends, which isn't unimportant, but both the 10 month and 12 month moving average systems made enough gains that someone could get whipsawed a lot and still be ahead. The real question is whether you fear a big downturn or fear being whipsawed more in the future. Considering the volatility benefits it would seem like a decent chance of significantly improving risk adjusted returns and possibly absolute returns, although the internet bubble and the credit crisis were a big help in the last 15+ years.

FYI: Dennis Gartman is the man behind The Gartman Letter, a daily newsletter discussing global capital markets. For almost 30 years, The Gartman Letter has tackled the political, economic and social trends shaping the world's markets. ETF.com recently caught up with Gartman to discuss the latest developments in the financial markets.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/gartman-dont-buy-stocks-consider-gold?nopaging=1

Best and Worst sometimes has a lot to do with timing...when you buy a fund. For example, WASYX had a fantastic run until it ran into problems with asset bloat and big management changes. Those folks who owned it from 2007- 2013 and sold it for whatever reason probably loved it. Even with some stinker years, especially the last 3+ years, its 15-yr average return is about 8%. But this is why WHO runs an actively-managed fund is so critical, as is asset bloat and the problems it might cause.
Investors often are late to the party with funds, getting if after the big gains. Once the fund gains large numbers of assets, it may be unable to continue using its unique strategy. Certainly MFLDX is a good example of this. Spectacular numbers from inception 2008 through much of 2013 (assets ballooned from $35 million to almost $16 billion), then running of the tracks and crashing, not recovering even as assets dropped to $370 million. Here there was no management change. In hindsight, the small fund's purchase by a large fund company was likely a big mistake.
I would urge caution about labeling relatively new funds "Best". "Best" can mean different things to different investors. While I personally own SIGIX because of its manager's track record, the fund is barely 5 years old. I own it because I believe it is a good compliment to a higher-volatility index like SCHE. It may not have the best long-term total return numbers, but I am ok with that.

@msf I agree it is virtually impossible to do business or invest without entering some of these ethical/political grey areas. It is part of life and it would be hard to function on a practical level otherwise, so yes we can try and must sometimes separate these political and financial goals to function. But there is inevitably a point for many people where the political/ethical intersects with investment goals to such a degree that action for a person of conscience is necessary. It is the reason socially responsible investing exists.
What the particular ethical line is beyond which is unacceptable is of course up to each individual's taste and conscience. But for an investor to say such ethical lines don't exist for them and that they are thus "apolitical" is actually I think misguided. That person is actually endorsing a harsh libertarian ideology, an extreme political stance that believes that profit takes precedence over everything else.
Among the embedded political views in the profit above everything else investment philosophy you can deduce the following:
1. Low to no taxes--corporate and capital gains especially--as getting rid of these increases investor profits.
2. No government regulations of business except for those that protect property rights as this increases corporate profits.
3. Anti-labor. No minimum wage, no labor safety requirements, no unions as all of these reduce profits.
4. No consumer protection--as class action lawsuits and federal regs to protect consumers reduce profits.
While an investor may disagree with these ideas in their separate political silo as you say, they are implicitly endorsing them by investing in companies and with money managers that are actively seeking these goals. There is a kind of hypocrisy to this, and many people have pointed this out with regard to Warren Buffett. But we live in a world where to function one must be hypocritical sometimes. It is a matter of degrees. But the extremist politically is the libertarian investor who claims those degrees don't matter or don't exist.

"The bundle of hedge funds had compound annual returns of 2.2 percent in the nine years through 2016, compared with 7.1 percent for the index fund. The billionaire estimated that about 60 percent of the gains that the hedge funds produced during that period were eaten up by management fees."
Here's the arithmetic:
5.25% gross for the hedge funds.
2+20 in fees = 2% + 1.05% = 3.05% fees
5.25% - 3.05% = 2.2% net.
3.05% fees/5.25% gross is approximately 60%
If hedge fund managers underperformed the market (before fees), and index funds merely matched the market (before fees), then everyone else outperformed the market on average. That means individual investors and active mutual funds on (dollar-weighted) average beat the index funds.
This is just Sharpe's argument that you can't beat the market. In order for someone to outperform, there has to be someone who was underperforming. Fortunately, active investors had a bunch of losers they could take advantage of over the past nine years. Hedge funds.

@LewisBraham To a large degree, I agree with you. I do not want to be investing in companies that do bad things. Someone wrote, in another thread, that what Wells Fargo did was not out of the ordinary. (Everyone does it, so it's okay.) If this is indeed business as usual, then all businesses need to be prosecuted. I do not support ill-gotten gains.
(Withholding information can be addressed under products liability laws, e.g. defective products under the theory of failure to warn.)
But IMHO there's a difference between investing in what is legal and working toward changing those laws. I may advocate a $15 min wage, but I do not decline to do business with or invest in companies that don't meet that standard. Like Buffett, I may support politicians who would increase my taxes but I don't pay more in taxes than the current code requires me to pay.
I still feel that one can separate one's actions from one's advocacy.
Regarding hiring: Say I was opposed to virtually all government regulation (too oppressive), and I needed to contract a writer for a primer on "what is a stock". Should I refuse to consider hiring you, not because you would incorporate your views into that writing (I assume you would do an objective, professional job), but because you might spend some of your earnings supporting positions I disagreed with? That approach would make it hard to hire anyone.
If my assumption is wrong, and you're going to let your views affect your work, then clearly I should reconsider.

@MikeM - Did you mean PWRCX (Power Income Class C) or PRWCX (T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation)?
Oops @rforno beat me to this observation. I think we can safely assume Mike meant PRWCX Capital Appreciation. Own and agree it's a great fund from a fine family. Probably "overbought" at this time - if the term may be applied to a fund.

And while I do respect your desire to keep politics out of financial affairs, it is a real fact (not one of the new "alternative" variety) that Mr. Obama was the president during that time frame. I'm not postulating that the presidency is directly responsible for financial losses or gains, simply remarking on the facts.
So your response is to hijack this thread just to get the last word? Desperately pitiful.
I apologize @johnN. This was a good discussion you started. Do not let the political interruption overrun your thread.

@JohnChisum- Well, yes, but still take into account that the particular time frame involved was right in the middle of the recovery from the "almost depression" of 2007/08.
And while I do respect your desire to keep politics out of financial affairs, it is a real fact (not one of the new "alternative" variety) that Mr. Obama was the president during that time frame. I'm not postulating that the presidency is directly responsible for financial losses or gains, simply remarking on the facts.

I confess to being a "half-glass-empty" investor. --- So like the late, great Dr. Martin Zweig, I find myself "worried" (and am always "worried")...
The link below is to a chart I watch from time-to-time..
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLH0A0HYM2
Tight spreads imply business optimism is (largely) discounted. Can the spread tighen (i.e. support to junk prices) yet further? Sure. But how much optimism is left to be discovered by the capital markets?
The thing is, junk-debt as an asset class is a 'risk-on' asset. If (when) it loses a bid, its very likely that equities will come under pressure too. The old saw goes : "the only thing that goes up in a bear market is correllation." So if one is skiddish about junk's prospects, one should also have a wary eye on equities...

If she is or soon will be a college graduate I suggest "The only investment guide you will ever need " by Andrew Tobias

Don't know if Tobias' work is the best - but do recall it being the last investment book I ever gleaned anything worthwhile out of. Excellent choice for any age. Don't believe you'd have to be a college grad to comprehend. A reasonably capable high school junior/senior should do just fine. (Really depends on where her inclinations lie).
---
Additional: Very impressed with the Bloomberg interviews I've seen with Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital. An exceptionally bright, clear, easy to understand thinker. Haven't read any of his books yet, but am tempted to do so.
More: Haven't read anything by Peter Lynch either. But if he writes as well as he speaks, I'd expect a newbie would find his investing ideas both entertaining and instructive.

Back to multiple paragraphs ago: I don't think DCA into market that is (probably) overvalued is a wise strategy. I read the latest Cinnamond Absolute Investing blog, and I wish I had his millions (so I could feel good about a Starbucks latte, and walking my dog, and not buying any over-valued thing. [He's also a lot younger, so he can get back in the game when values exist.]). And he actually plans to do so. This raises the question: do I save cash; plunge heavily in to any new fund he establishes? I'm pretty sure he will
Perhaps the post suggesting that 2 initial up months guarantees a positive year is correct, but I may be up 8% now (in some accounts) and 2% at Xmas, which makes me positive, but not too happy.
People who take 1% of my money (or more) are isolated from my needs. If their funds decline 5% in a 20% decline (an extremely rare event), I have still lost money, but they trumpet a successful year.
Cinnamond says there's nothing he sees worth buying, and I'm still trying to find stuff to sell.
I'm sure there are multiple individual stocks that will do well as (relatively) desperate managers and individuals buy them, but I hope they are paying dividends.
While happy with my gains, I have to wonder if this another peak at which I should sell. I've missed or ignored all the other, so why should this be different?

FYI: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares took a nosedive Tuesday following a federal appeals court decision to stay a previous ruling that disallows investors from suing the U.S. government. The cases alleged that the government (taxpayers) illegally seized billions of dollars from the mortgage giants. Teresa Rivas reported on it Tuesday.
Over-the-counter shares of Fannie (FNMA) and Freddie (FMCC) slid 34.7% and 38.1%, respectively. Preferred shares were down similarly.
Call it a hitch – hedge funds and other distressed asset investors, who snapped up shares for pennies on the dollar expecting to get paid back won’t go quietly. Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management is a major holder of common shares; Perry Capital and Bruce Berkowitz’ Fairholme Funds are major owners of the preferred shares.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2017/02/22/fannie-and-freddie-took-a-big-fall-will-bruce-berkowitz-fairholme-come-tumbling-after/tab/print/

FYI: CFRA’s Sam Stovall says he’s looking for a long-overdue “digestion of gains,” though he adds the pause will not likely result in the end of this bull market.
The run will continue, the chief investment strategist writes, thanks in part to improving earnings and inflation staying subdued. In support, he notes one indicator that’s close to getting triggered.
“If you need additional encouragement that a bear market is not just around the corner, history again may offer some more virtual Valium,” says Stovall, who delivers our call of the day.
Since 1945, there have been 27 years when the S&P has achieved gains in January and February. The stock index then finished up for the year (on a total-return basis) in every one those years, according to Stovall. That’s going 27 for 27, or batting a thousand.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-bullish-signal-has-never-been-wrong-and-its-about-to-flash-for-2017-2017-02-22/print

Damage to FAIRX today is 12.98%.

Basically back to square one YTD.

Yikes! Haven't found any capital distribution news.

Why would this trigger distribution? You think Jerky Berky will sell? No way. Everyone needs their WAMU. He will keep fighting.