I doubt flows will be much of an issue for the Micro fund. Retail world isn't going to be dominating this one at all, I wouldn't think. I'm assuming there is a large institutional client that will be providing a nice chunk of money for the fund.
Any idea why GP would launch a fund that will close @ just $25 million? I know the fee is pretty hefty, but will it even generate enough in fees to cover the costs of running it or will this fund essentially break even? Also, would you not expect the Global Stalwarts fund to have slightly lower fees since there is U.S. exposure?
Anyways, I'll be watching the launch like a hawk and am very excited that I will be able to invest some more capital with these guys (invested in EM Opps). IMO, one of the best shops around. I'll be allocating to Global Stalwarts. Just hope that these funds stay open a little longer since they are SMid and thus liquidity is less of an issue.

Folks might I suggest ... and, if you have the desire ...
Edward Jones has offices in most towns throughout the good old USA ... Why not visit one and meet with one of their advisors, face-to-face, to get the scoop first hand on their Advisor Solutions program. I am not in their advisory program because I felt I'd be taking a pay cut as my portfolio, at last review when compared to their growth & income model(s) was out performing theirs plus I'd be giving up control of my investments and my ability to hire and fire fund managers, positon my portfolio to my choices plus I'd have to pay the advisory solutions management fee ... and, in addition, I'd have to sell funds with large capital gains (TAXES) to make the switch unless I opted to do this in my IRA.
I have been a client of Edward Jones for more than twenty five years and the only account fees I remember to have ever paid myself was the annual fee ($30.00, perhaps now $40.00) on my self directed IRA. And, with building the account(s) to a good size I now have no account, or wrap, fees and many of my purchase transactions are at nav or reduced commissions. Generally, once you buy into a fund family you can do nav exchanges into other funds within that family of funds without a sales charge.
Perhaps you should just get the scoop first hand from them, if interested, and not off the board as I feel some of the information provided by some other posters is not what I have experienced.

I know the fund closed in June 2014; however, I am trying to see if anyone knows or has found a "backdoor" to get into the fund?
I find with its track record and long history of a single manager (I believe the only fund me manages and its variations).
This would be for a taxable account (there is a backdoor for moving a 401k to a T Rowe Price IRA) - so not looking for an "income oriented" comparable fund.
Any and all help is appreciated.

Hi @bee
Don't hold FAGIX right now; but probably should....., but it was traded in for the time being :)
Although rightfully classified as a high yield bond fund, this fund has always been one of the hybrid funds that doesn't fit into a complete category. The name Capital and Income is likely an appropriate name for this fund.
The fund mix has always held about 80% true high yield corp. bonds, with the remainder in equity. Some of the HY bonds is/was foreign and some of the equity is generally foreign, too. Current management has been in place for more than 12 years; but the prior team always performed well, too.
If one has access to this fund through whatever type of account they hold, I would always recommend this fund for a portion of bonds, although being HY with the equity mix causes this fund to be more equity directed for/with market movements.
Current YTD is about +4.6%.
We have held this fund at various periods beginning in the early 1980's.
Fidelity view, composition
The reason this fund is not in our portfolio at this time is that the monies from the sale were placed into healthcare/bio/pharma holdings for a direct path into equities. This fund is always on our monitored list of funds. For those reading this, don't confuse this fund with Fidelity's HY fund of SPHIX. This fund, as well as other vendor's offerings of high yield bond funds with not likely fit the same mold as FAGIX. I don't consider the E.R. of .72% to be out of line for the performance of this fund relative to others of this category. FAGIX has remained high on the list of HY bond funds.
As with any market sector, this fund is subject to market conditions and will have its "off" periods.
@bee, I know you may or have probably already formed some graphs for this fund; sadly I can't offer your well designed graphic layouts you post here.
Just for the heck of it............... a 5 year combo return for a mostly U.S. centric portfolio of these 3 funds:
---VTI, u.s. blend, leaning towards lg. cap.
---PONDX / PIMIX , mixed bonds, depending on the markets (excellent management)
---FAGIX, as noted above
5 year average = 12% annual
Not too bad for such a "Strange Brew" (Bruce,Baker,Clapton)
Take care and thank for all of your fine offerings here,
Catch

MARKETS
Calpers Struggles as Its Return Falls Short
Largest U.S. pension fund earned 2.4% in fiscal 2015, shy of 2.5% goal
By TIMOTHY W. MARTIN WSJ
Updated July 13, 2015 6:43 p.m. ET
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System fell short of its annual return target in fiscal 2015, as public pensions around the U.S. struggle through one of their worst years since the financial crisis.
The $301 billion pension fund, the largest in the U.S. by assets and known as Calpers, said it earned 2.4% on its investments for the fiscal year ended June 30 because of a slump in the markets and weak private-equity returns. The performance was just shy of its internal goal of 2.5%. It was Calpers’ poorest year since 2012, when it earned 1%, and down from 18.4% in 2014.
Pension investments have been challenged this year by low interest rates, uneven market performance and the recovery of the U.S. dollar, which has weakened gains in global stocks.
Calpers played down the importance of its 2015 performance, noting that the pension fund had topped three- and five-year internal targets with returns of 10.9% and 10.7%. Calpers assumes it will produce annual returns over the long run of 7.5%.
“We try not to get too fixated or excited about any one-year return,” said Calpers Chief Investment Officer Ted Eliopoulos on Monday at a board meeting. “The strength of our long-term numbers gives us confidence that our strategic plan is working,”
Mr. Eliopoulos, who was named CIO last year, has moved Calpers to simplify its portfolio and dial down the risk. Those moves include halving the number of external money managers it works with by 2020, plus winding down its hedge-fund program. Reducing risk in its portfolio also could have the effect of missing out on outsize returns.
“It’s a marathon, not a sprint,” he said. “Nobody expects stable 7.5% or 8% returns year in, year out.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/calpers-return-falls-short-of-annual-target-1436802617
Tough Times For Broadly Diversified Portfolios
How’s your globally diversified strategy faring these days? Having a tough time? You’re not alone–the headwinds are fierce. For the first time in recent memory, the overwhelming majority of the major asset classes are in the red on a trailing one-year basis. As a result, broadly defined asset allocation strategies are suffering, at least relative to the stellar numbers in recent years.
Using a set of ETF proxies for the trailing 250-day (1 year) total return, only US stocks, US REITs (real estate investment trusts), and US bonds (broadly defined) are posting gains among the major asset classes. By contrast, the other 11 asset classes are in varying states of loss over that period.... The lesson, of course, is that mean reversion is alive and well when it comes to market (and portfolio strategy) returns.
With Charts

http://www.capitalspectator.com/tough-times-for-broadly-diversified-portfolios/

Just reached a certain $$ level. Yes, thankfully, I am healthy and using the HSA as a supercharged savings account for future healthcare expenses. I set up the HSA at Saturna Capital...no maintenance fees there. They have a limited selection of fund families available, so I went with TRP funds, based on MFO recommendations. The downside of Saturna is that you must hold the funds for 180 days, so I have been very careful in my selection and stagger my investments and redemptions accordingly. It is a comparatively small account, so it has been challenging at times.

FYI: Jeffrey Gundlach is locked in a protracted stare-down with an unlikely foe: Morningstar Inc.
Gundlach, who formed his investing firm DoubleLine Capital LP in 2009 and built it into one of the most successful fixed-income fund companies, is sparring with the research firm over what DoubleLine says have been a series of false and misleading statements about its flagship fund, according to people familiar with the matter.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bond-king-jeff-gundlach-feuds-with-unlikely-foe-2015-07-14/print
WSJ Article: (Click On article Title At Top Of Google Search)
https://www.google.com/#q=Bond+King+Gundlach+Feuds+With+Morningstar+wsj
M* Snapshot DBLTX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/DBLTX/quote.html

Hi, @willmatt72,
Bonds are a part of my overall asset allocation and carry a weighting range of 20% to 40% within my portfolio with a neutral weighting being 30%. Currently, bonds make up about 20% of my portfolio; and, with this, I bubble at the low range. The bond funds that I currently own are GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX. I have representations to bank loans, short term securities, high yield securities and other type of bonds and income generating securities through my multi sector income funds. As from review of my last Instant Xray (June 26th) analysis my fund managers collectively have reduced bonds, within the portfolio, by a couple percent and raised stocks by a like amount while keeping cash and the other asset classification the same. However, short positions within the portfolio were increased form 6% to 8%.
As I write, my fixed income sleeve year-to-date is up 0.6% while a bond index fund that I track is down 0.5%. My hybrid income sleeve which consists of AZNAX, ISFAX, CAPAX, FKINX, PASAX & PGBAX is up year-to-date 0.9%. Both sleeve's total return have not been able to keep pace, thus far this year, with their distributions made resulting in a decline in sleeve valuation. However, other sleeves within the portfolio are showing net positive total returns resulting in positive results for the portfolio as a whole after accounting for all gains and distributions taken.
Hope this information is helpful.
Old_Skeet

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/44402/000089843215000896/a497.htm
Neuberger Berman Equity Funds®
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus, each dated December 15, 2014, and the Statement of Additional Information, dated December 15, 2014 (as amended February 5, 2015, April 14, 2015, and June 17, 2015)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neuberger Berman Global Thematic Opportunities Fund
Class A, Class C and Institutional Class
The Board of Trustees of Neuberger Berman Equity Funds (the “Trust”) has approved the liquidation of Neuberger Berman Global Thematic Opportunities Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust. Accordingly, the Fund will cease its investment operations, liquidate its assets and make a liquidating distribution to shareholders of record.
The date of liquidation for the Fund currently is anticipated to be on or about August 21, 2015 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shareholders may continue to redeem their Fund shares through the Liquidation Date. As of the close of business on July 22, 2015, the Fund will no longer accept orders to purchase Fund shares from new investors or existing shareholders (including purchases through dividend reinvestments). In connection with the liquidation, the Fund may depart from its stated goals, strategies and techniques as it begins to convert all portfolio securities to cash or cash equivalents in preparation for the final distribution to shareholders. Any shareholder who purchased Class A or Class C Fund shares on or after June 25, 2015, will be reimbursed any applicable sales charge paid and will not be subject to any applicable contingent deferred sales charge. If any such sales charge has already been paid, that amount will be reimbursed to the shareholder.
Shareholders who elect to redeem their Fund shares prior to the completion of the liquidation will be redeemed in the ordinary course at the Fund’s net asset value per share. Shareholders may exchange their Fund shares for shares of another fund in the Neuberger Berman mutual fund complex in accordance with the terms of the Fund’s prospectus at any time prior to the Fund’s cessation of operations. Each shareholder who does not choose either of those options and remains in the Fund will receive a liquidating cash distribution equal to the aggregate net asset value of the Fund shares that such shareholder holds at the time of the liquidation. Shareholders are encouraged to consider options that may be suitable for the reinvestment of their liquidation proceeds, including exchanging into another fund in the Neuberger Berman mutual fund complex.
The liquidation of the Fund will result in one or more taxable events for shareholders that are subject to federal income tax. A redemption or exchange of Fund shares prior to the Fund’s cessation of operations will generally give rise to a capital gain or loss (depending on the shareholder’s tax basis in the shares) for federal income tax purposes. In connection with the liquidation, the Fund will declare taxable distributions of its previously undistributed net investment income and net capital gain, if any, in advance of its normal annual distribution schedule. All liquidation proceeds paid to shareholders will generally be treated as received by them in exchange for their Fund shares and will therefore generally give rise to a capital gain or loss, again depending on their respective tax bases in their shares.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders who hold their Fund shares through a retirement plan or account (such as a 401(k) plan or individual retirement account) should consult their tax advisers regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares prior to the completion of the liquidation or the receipt of a liquidating cash distribution. Upon the receipt of a distribution from the Fund, whether in the form of a redemption or a liquidating cash distribution, such shareholders may have a limited time within which to reinvest the distribution proceeds to avoid adverse tax consequences.
The date of this supplement is July 13, 2015.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
NEUBERGER BERMAN
Neuberger Berman Management LLC
605 Third Avenue 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10158-0180
Shareholder services: 800-877-9700
Institutional Services: 800-366-6264
Website: www.nb.com

Probably shouldn't be using a word like "fixed" when discussing investing markets. :)
A formal title for this, perhaps should be something like: "Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then." Thank you, Mr. Bob Seger for this insight thought.
As to next week July 13; well, and I don't know why :), but I still feel a little twitchy about Greece getting a real short term fix.
And I suppose I should be keeping in mind that only some of China equity is trading. 'Course, this country likely has enough real capital monies to shape whatever it needs for its internal equity markets and citizens.
Ms. Yellen's note on Friday about a small bump in rates didn't seem to bother the equity markets; and Europe had a very nice day, on Friday.
Other than the above items, is this as normal as it gets for the near future.......?
Well, anyway; from recent further reductions in investment grade bond holdings, our house has about 4.35% of a portfolio cash position that will be deployed next week, or at least, more than likely next week barring major baby black swans being born. Well, that's the thought at this time, anyway.
'Course, been looking at the oversold or down trodden areas. Latin America, as an example, is still a mess, IMO; and will likely remain in the dumper for the future. Not interested in commodities at this time, with the possible exception of energy; which we have been watching for so many months. This area is still having a rough time gaining upward momentum.
For the curious (yes, we all are, eh?) our current mix (evolving over the past two years) is:
---equity, 67.4%
---investment grade bonds, 28.2%
---cash, money market, 4.4%
EQUITY breakdown
---health/bio/pharma, (mostly U.S.) 41%
---blend U.S., VTI / ITOT type, 25%
---int'l, (mostly Euro), 20%
---real estate U.S., 14%
Well, the health related stuff is still happy; and the blend equity is around +2.4% YTD and the Euro area is doing well, too. U.S. real estate has been in a funk, but has had positive moves during the past few weeks, but this area remains in the negative for the year in the -3% range, depending upon the fund. Many IG bond holdings are pretty much flat and/or slightly negative YTD.
Just a little thinking outloud, Sunday morning, not enough coffee yet..........words.
Hoping that you find your investments, and you, to be happy during this "interesting" markets period.
Take care,
Catch

What's a bank account :-)
Seriously, the only bank accounts I have are for other benefits - a local bank account ($250 balance) to get a safe deposit box and a legacy BofA eChecking account ($0) to get a 10% bonus on my credit card cash rewards.
Bill pay, ATM, checking - all out of my brokerage accounts. Merrill Lynch pioneered CMAs a third of a century ago.
Yes, you can have VG transfer money to a bank account. Every time you get a dividend from a fund, you'll need to check that it has hit your settlement account, then transfer that amount to your bank. (VG will automate transfers, but you can't set it up for a variable amount, such as the dividends from a fund.)
I have VG fund dividends deposited directly and automatically into my non-VG brokerage account (where I have full CMA features), but that's because they are in VG fund accounts, not a VG brokerage account.
BTW, there can be a benefit to using a "real" bank. Some financial institutions won't set up links to brokerages. Capital One 360 (not to be confused with Capital One) would not set up a link to Fidelity (Fidelity uses UMB as its bank for checks, but the account doesn't show up as a "real" bank). But Capital One 360 had no problem setting up a link to Schwab bank (not a Schwab brokerage account), because that is a real bank.

I like Fidelity - customer service has been excellent (in my experience, I know it likely varies). Plus, international trading (which is a nice option even if you don't or rarely use it.) London has a lot of investment trusts (sort of their version of CEFs), including the Rothschild Fund (aka RIT Capital Partners.)
http://www.ritcap.com/about-us
The Witan funds, too, including the multi-manager Pacific fund, which is part managed by Matthews, part by Aberdeen and part by GaveKal.
http://www.witanpacific.com/about-the-trust/profile-and-objective

Here's Microsoft's Windows Lifecycle (support) page:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle
Windows 7 "mainstream" support has already ended. "Extended support" runs to 1/14/2020. As near as I can figure, that means primarily security patches.
Microsoft's policy is to provide at least 5 years mainstream support and an additional 5 years extended support. The way the policy is worded, it sounds like Microsoft is guaranteeing at least seven years support after the next version is released. So even if you buy the current release a day before the next release comes out, you're guaranteed at least seven years of support.
Not that I'm a Microsoft lover, but that sounds like a reasonable amount of time. A company cannot dedicate resources forever to support a system that's three versions old. And machines are usually replaced in less time than that.

Mary Miller did a bang-up job as head of T. Rowe Price's fixed income division. Before taking over, their fixed income funds were mostly duds. IMHO, she turned the division around and it remains competitive to this day. She left Price several years ago for government service.
From Wikipedia: "Mary John Miller serves as the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Under Secretary for Domestic Finance ... responsible for developing and coordinating Treasury's policies and guidance in the areas of financial institutions, federal debt financing, financial regulation, and capital markets. ... Previously, Miller served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Markets ... Prior to joining Treasury, Miller spent 26 years working for T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., where she was the director of the Fixed Income Division and a member of the firm's Management Committee. In November of 2011, Miller was included on The New Republic's list of Washington's most powerful, least famous people."
To the basic question here: I suspect it's for the same reason that males seem to dominate this board. For every Anna, you'll find three male-sounding names like Ted, Old Joe or Hank. Probably has to do with the relative attraction finance holds for the genders - especially when they are young. No doubt gender stereotyping plays a big part. That's also been an issue in many scientific/technical areas which largely attracted males until quite recently.

Bubbly + Help from state-backed margin finance company = What ???
Chinese shares dropped almost two percent in early trading, reversing much of gains made on Monday following unprecedented steps to stabilise a plummeting market.
Asian assets were also increasingly burdened by rising concerns over massive losses in Chinese stock markets over the past month or so.
Unprecedented emergency measures from Beijing helped Chinese stocks to bounce on Monday but trading remained highly volatile.
In an extraordinary weekend of policy moves, brokerages and fund managers vowed to buy massive amounts of stocks, helped by China's state-backed margin finance company, which in turn would be aided by a direct line of liquidity from the central bank.
"Prior to the selloff the Chinese market looked bubbly, kept rising even as the economy is slowing. It will take some time for the market to calm down," said Shuji Shirota, head of macroeconomics strategy group at HSBC in Tokyo.
"Judging from Japanese experience it is not easy to support share prices just by price keeping operation," he said, referring to Japanese attempts in the 1990s to shore up the stock market by using public funds to buy shares.
Fears of instability in the Chinese economy dented many types of assets that are thought to be leveraged to demand from China.
In the currency market, the Australian dollar fell to a six-year low of $0.7452 on Monday and last stood at $0.7485.
Shanghai copper posted its steepest daily drop in 5 months on Monday, while Chinese steel prices are at their lowest level since the depths of the global financial crisis. Iron ore has fallen 17 per cent since mid-June.
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/market/article-asia-shares-win-reprieve-but-greece-china-concerns-limit-gains-778868
Related to China margin stabilization efforts.
"The stocks exemplify one of the keys to China’s recent market selloff: Some of the biggest losers are companies with a relatively small portion of their shares freely traded, many of them bought using borrowed money."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-firms-discover-margin-lendings-downside-1435653636

A few thoughts:
1. I had no idea this fund was coming out. I got an alert because I own two of the other funds and was surprised to see it. There was nothing about the fund on the website yesterday.
2. Are there really enough major foreign healthcare names for this to be worthwhile? I mean, I know there's the European names (Novartis, Sanofi, etc etc) and others, but HQH (for example) is 12% foreign. This new fund can be up to 40% foreign - but "up to" is the focus (and 5% in EM.)
3. It can have 10% in private names, which is less than HQH/HQL.
I guess I'm just not seeing why I need this in addition to two of the other funds.
Edited to add: in terms of HQL, I see in the propsectus: "The Trust may invest up to 25% of its net assets in securities of foreign
issuers, expected to be located primarily in Western Europe, Canada and
Japan, and securities of U.S. issuers traded in foreign markets (‘‘Foreign
Securities’’). The Trust may buy and sell currencies for the purpose of
settlement of transactions in Foreign Securities"
and "The Trust emphasizes investment in securities of emerging growth Life
Investments Sciences Companies. These investments are often venture capital
investments. The Trust may invest up to 40% of its net assets in securities
subject to legal or contractual restrictions as to resale (‘‘Restricted
Securities’’), including venture capital investments. The Trust’s investments
in Restricted Securities may include ‘‘start-up,’’ early and later stage
financings of privately-held companies and private placements in public
companies. See ‘‘Investment Objective and Policies.’’"
So HQL has up to 25% in foreign and up to 40% in private. The new worldwide fund can do up to 10% in private and up to 45% in foreign.
Honestly, I'd rather HQL's 25% in foreign and 40% in private.

FYI: At Pimco, Bill Gross built a reputation as the world’s best bond trader. Now, at Janus Capital, he’s managing a much smaller fund—all while being measured against his younger self.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-29/gross-gets-personal-i-just-wanted-to-run-money-and-be-famous-

"We purchased shares of T. Rowe Price Group, the investment management company. As a significant player in our business, we have long admired T. Rowe ... Key to the franchise is the company's investment culture, which has sustainably generated commendable investment performance ... We also like that management has demonstrated good stewardship of capital through opportunistic share repurchases ..."
(Couldn't get copy/paste to work. Did my best to transcribe above accurately)
From: Oakmark Funds/ Equity and Income Fund
Semi-Annual Report, March 31, 2015
http://www.oakmark.com/Oakmark-files/semi-annual-reports/SemiAnnualReport_AllFunds.pdf

Cash is an invest few talk about.

Cash or not depends upon your circumstances.
If you have a job or pension/SS that meets your living expenses you may not need cash.
If you are retired you may need cash (or 'near cash' as I mentioned in another thread) to ride out market downs.
Cash can pay you money. Look at Obama care and subsidies and assume you are not working. You could structure your investments for long term capital gains and keep your living expenses in cash. You could get your subsidy. My calculations is showing I will get one.

Likely for 18-24 months.
Grantham's argument is two-fold: asset class bubbles occur when valuations exceed their historic norms by two standard deviations but high valuations alone don't cause bubbles to pop; you need a trigger. Right now, US stocks are about 1.6 standard deviations high, measured by either Tobin's Q or Schiller CAPE. If you chart the rising valuations, the inflation is pretty steady. It likely won't cross over the "two sigma" line until around the time of the Presidential election. At that point, we'd be set up for a 60% repricing of stocks. In the interim, don't discount your run-of-the-mill 10-15% hiccups.
He is not, he argues, pessimistic. It's just that the rest of us are irrationally optimistic.
The most interesting element of his talk centered on the distortions introduced by the Fed. Publicly traded corporations are posting record profit margins; rather than reinvesting that cash (capital expenditures / capex are at historic low levels), they're buying back overpriced company shares to reward current shareholders. The buybacks are also being funded by low interest debt issuance. Private firms are continuing to commit large amounts of money to capex. That's contributing to the high profit margins, since firms aren't trying to arbitrage their competitors' high profits away by competing for business in those sectors (which would require capex). They're luxuriating in their own cash flows and distributing it straight to executives and other shareholders. The fund managers who are heavily exposed to the energy sector point to a collapsing E&P infrastructure as old rigs retire but few new ones (and few new ships and pipelines and refineries) are funded.
David